get_party_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the sequential chunking behavior and the alternative corpus, which is helpful. However, it does not describe edge cases like end-of-document behavior, chunk ordering guarantees, or whether the operation is purely read-only, though 'Fetch' implies a safe read.

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 and purposeful: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block. Every line adds necessary parameter semantics, with no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers core behavior and all parameters, though it omits minor context such as how to discover valid party IDs via list_parties. This is a minor gap given the provided examples.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each parameter beyond the schema: party with concrete examples, offset as 0-based chunk offset, limit as a 1–50 count, and corpus with its two possible values and default.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('sequential text chunks from one party's programme'), and an optional alternative corpus ('Wahl-O-Mat answers'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_programmes by emphasizing sequential chunk retrieval versus searching, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you need to read a party's programme or Wahl-O-Mat answers as sequential chunks. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention search_programmes or list_parties as alternatives for different needs.

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