verify_legislative_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses accepted input formats, automatic sequential checking of bill/member/committee candidates, and the exact failure markers ([NOT_FOUND], [AMBIGUOUS], [VERIFY_FAILED], [API_FAILED]). It does not mention rate-limit or side-effect details, but the tool is inherently a read-only verification and the API_FAILED marker covers external dependency.

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 organized: one purpose line, a labeled input-format list with examples, and a brief failure-behavior note. Each piece earns its place, though the multiple examples add a little length over a pure one-liner.

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 input formats and failure markers, and an output schema exists to carry the return shape, but it leaves age and limit unexplained and gives no success-path description. An agent could call it correctly for simple text input but would be guessing on the optional parameters.

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 parameter semantics rest on the description. It gives concrete examples for the required citations_or_text parameter (JSON array, JSON object, plain text) but never explains the age and limit parameters. This partial compensation is useful but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it verifies claims or citations about bills, members, committees, and votes against National Assembly OpenAPI data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/search tools.

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 first line establishes the intended scenario—there is a legislative claim or citation to check—and the input-format section tells the agent how to package citations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the verification purpose supplies clear context.

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