search_prints

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

The description goes beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by disclosing implementation details: the Sejm API doesn't filter server-side, the tool downloads ~1.7MB of data, filters locally, and caches for 10 minutes. It also lists specific error types (missing_arg, invalid_term, upstream_error). This gives the agent a clear picture of expected latency and failure modes.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: purpose, performance/caching behavior, and error codes. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, performance, caching, and errors, which is substantial for a read-only search tool. However, since there is no output schema, it doesn't describe the return structure (e.g., a list of prints), which would improve completeness. Still, given the tool's simplicity, it is largely adequate.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (term, limit, title) with 100% coverage. The description adds minor value by noting that title matching is case-insensitive and supports Polish characters, and that the term parameter corresponds to a parliamentary term. This is slightly beyond the schema, but not significantly.

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 states the tool's function: 'Szuka druków sejmowych po fragmencie tytułu' (searches parliamentary prints by title fragment), with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_print or get_process, but the search vs. retrieval distinction is clear from the name and verb.

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?

The description implies usage context by explaining the behavior: it downloads the full list and filters locally, with caching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_print or get_process, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is mostly implied through the performance characteristics.

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