search_parliament_business

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety and mutability profile is fully covered. The description adds only the corpus inventory, not behavior such as relevance ranking, result ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or whether matches are in German/French/Italian. Adequate but thin beyond structured data.

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?

Two short sentences, scoping and corpus front-loaded, with the alternative-disambiguation placed last. No redundancy and nothing that could be trimmed without losing routing information.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what is not. Minor gap: it doesn't state the language of the corpus or that results are relevance-ranked, which would matter for a full-text endpoint.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both params with an example ('German term, e.g. Klimaschutz, AHV') and the limit cap. The description adds no syntax, matching, or language-scope detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('full-text search') and a specific resource ('federal parliament affairs'), then enumerates the covered content types (bills, motions, interpellations, postulates, questions, initiatives) and explicitly scopes out the cantonal sibling. An agent can distinguish it from search_cantonal_affairs without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative search_cantonal_affairs and the exact condition that selects it (cantonal parliaments), which is explicit routing guidance. However, it gives no guidance on choosing between this tool and same-domain siblings such as search_parliament_speeches or get_parliamentary_documents, leaving real ambiguity about which corpus to hit.

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