List EP Legislative Procedures

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the data source (EP Open Data API v2), the license (CC BY 4.0), the fact that no auth is required, and pagination limits. This is valuable, though it stops short of disclosing rate limits or error behavior.

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, logically ordered, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return fields, filter types, pagination, and data-source/licensing note. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only list tool with four optional parameters, an output schema, and safety-related annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, all filtering options, pagination bounds, data provenance, licensing, and auth requirements. No critical operational details are missing.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description, including the meaning of COD/CNS/BUD/INI/RSP and the parliamentary term example. The description mostly reiterates what the schema provides, so it adds little additional semantic value beyond confirming the filter options and pagination mechanics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List European Parliament legislative procedures' and clarifies what a procedure is ('the full legislative tracks that produce EU law'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling eu_parliament.legislation.adopted_texts, though the 'full legislative tracks' phrasing implies the distinction.

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 gives clear operational context—which filters are available, what results contain, pagination, and auth requirements—so an agent can infer when to call it. But it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the sibling adopted_texts tool or any other alternative, and it provides no exclusions. Usage guidance is 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.