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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that filters combine with AND, which is genuinely useful behavioral info. However, it does not mention whether pagination is required for large result sets, whether the response is a flat list, or any rate-limiting or access considerations. The safety profile is entirely unaddressed (no read-only hint, no destructive hint), which is a gap for a listing tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The main action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the workflow pointer ('turns a name into people_id') is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple list/search tool with 100% parameter coverage and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, the AND-combination behavior, and the primary downstream use. What is missing is a bit more return-value context (e.g., that results include people_id) and pagination guidance, but for a low-complexity tool this is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter with a brief description. The description adds some context by naming the filter dimensions and noting AND combination, but it does not add details such as accepted formats for chamber or district beyond what the schema gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search or list'), names the resource (legislators) and the endpoint (GET /v1/legislators), and lists the key filter dimensions (jurisdiction, chamber, party, district, or name). It also distinguishes this tool's lookup purpose from get_legislator, so an agent can tell it apart from its sibling tools without opening any schemas.

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 makes the use case explicit: 'This is how you turn a name into the people_id that get_legislator needs.' This clearly points to a common workflow and identifies the downstream consumer. It does not explicitly explain when to choose list_legislators over list_session_legislators or list_candidates, but the primary use case is well covered.

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