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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that seats count only ACTIVE mandates, that has_majority is null (not false) when chamber totals are unknown, and that member sampling is bounded with members_truncated signaling more. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the profile contents, then the prerequisite resolution step, then the count semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information; the seat-counting and null-majority caveats are well placed.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: resolution prerequisite, active-mandate seat counting, null-majority behavior, and truncation signaling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented, but the description adds semantic depth: the id-resolution rationale and the meaning of member_limit sampling with members_truncated and list_actors paging. This exceeds the baseline 3 by clarifying behavior rather than just restating the schema.

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 and resource: 'Full profile for one political party' with concrete contents (seats per chamber, sample legislators, recent bills). Distinguishes itself from list_parties, which is named as the name-resolution sibling.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to resolve a name to party_id via list_parties(country_code=...) first, and explains why (party names repeat across coalitions and eras). It also names list_actors(party_id=...) as the way to page all members rather than the sample.

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