dip_search_plenarprotokoll

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that full-text search is performed and matching protocols are returned, without explaining pagination behavior, result ordering, relevance ranking, or whether matches are highlighted. It adds little beyond what the name and schema already convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and easy to parse in two sentences. It is slightly redundant ('full text search' appears in the schema and 'debate text' repeats the Plenarprotokoll concept), but it remains appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how optional filters like date range, herausgeber, or wahlperiode affect results, nor what the returned protocol records look like. An agent could invoke it with the required query and limit but would lack context for filtering and interpreting results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides descriptions for all six parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only generally mentions full-text search. Since schema coverage is 100%, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Search') and the specific resource ('Plenarprotokolle', parliamentary debate transcripts), and further clarifies that results are protocols containing the term in the debate text. This resource focus distinguishes it from siblings like dip_search_vorgang or the generic dip_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dip_search_vorgang, dip_search, or other search tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided; usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.