search_programmes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It conveys important behavior constraints like language support, optional corpora, and a 1–50 hit limit, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that this is read-only/has no side effects, nor how null party/corpus defaults behave, though the output schema helps with return shape.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a labeled Args block. Every line contributes useful parameter or behavior information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with four parameters and an output schema, this description is nearly complete: all parameters are explained with types, examples, and constraints. The only gaps are the lack of explicit sibling-tool routing and a precise statement of default corpus behavior, which are minor given the clear operation and output schema.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains query semantics with language examples, party as id or short name with examples, corpus as 'programme' vs 'wahlomat', and limit range/default. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare property titles.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Keyword/FTS search across Wahlprogramme (and optionally Wahl-O-Mat answers).' This makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_parties, coverage_status, and get_party_programme, which are not search operations.

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 Args block provides operational guidance, such as party filters, corpus selection, and limit range, so an agent knows how to shape calls. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over get_party_programme or when not to use it, leaving cross-tool routing implied rather than stated.

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