Emily Politics — UK Parliament (free)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that lookup is by partial title and lists the returned information, which is useful. However, it does not explain behavior for multiple matches, no results, or whether the bill must be currently before Parliament, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 a single well-structured sentence that fronts the action and resource, then lists the return fields. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and outputs (stage, sponsor, dates, summary, page). It is nearly complete, though it omits edge-case behavior such as handling multiple partial matches.

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?

The single 'title' parameter is documented only by the schema as a string. The description adds that it is searched as a 'partial title', which is meaningful but incomplete; it does not specify matching behavior (case sensitivity, substring rules) or provide examples. With 0% schema coverage of descriptions, more compensation would be needed for a higher score.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and names the exact resource ('a bill before Parliament') plus the search method ('by partial title') and the return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_divisions or lookup_member, which target different entities.

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 usage context clear: use this when you need the status of a UK bill by its title. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the tool's scope is unambiguous given the title and sibling context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool returns (totals plus per-party breakdown), which is helpful, but doesn't mention error handling, data freshness, or any side effects. For a simple read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes the usage hint. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool, the description sufficiently covers the input source and output structure (totals plus per-party ayes/noes). It could explain behavior on invalid IDs, but overall it's nearly complete given the lack of output schema and minimal complexity.

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 description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that division_id comes from search_divisions, which is exactly the semantic meaning needed. It doesn't describe the ID format, but the provenance is the most critical piece and is clearly provided.

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 clearly states the tool returns the full result of a specific division vote, including totals and per-party ayes/noes. It specifically references using the division_id from search_divisions, distinguishing it from the search tool and making its unique purpose explicit.

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 provides a clear usage hint: use the division_id from search_divisions, implying a prerequisite workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context strongly suggests it is for retrieving full details after finding a specific division ID.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic data returned, with no mention of data source limitations, pagination, authentication, or any operational constraints. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every element 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return format, pagination, or any behavioral details beyond filtering. It names the dataset adequately but leaves too many operational aspects unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 has two parameters (minister, organisation) with 0% property descriptions. The description adds that they are filters, which is helpful, but it does not clarify input formats, whether both can be combined, or what counts as valid values. Minimal compensation over the bare 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?

Description clearly identifies the resource ('ministerial transparency releases') and outcome ('who ministers have met'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_lobbying or search_contracts. Though the verb 'Search' is only in the title, the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for finding ministerial meetings but provides no explicit when to use vs. alternatives. With many sibling search tools, the absence of exclusions or alternative references leaves the selection criteria vague.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a lookup/find operation and enumerates the returned data (party, constituency, current role). It does not describe not-found behavior or name matching nuances, but for a simple read-only lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately lists the key outputs. Every word contributes value; there is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the input scope ('by name') and the main output fields. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no match found) and does not mention alternatives, but the tool's low complexity makes this adequate. A small addition about what happens when the member is not found would make it 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?

The schema defines a single 'name' parameter with only min/max length, and the description adds just 'by name' without explaining format requirements, whether partial names are supported, or how titles/hyphenated names are handled. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') plus a well-defined resource ('a sitting MP or peer') and specifies the exact output fields (party, constituency, current role). This fully distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like search_parliament or search_member_interests.

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 phrase 'Find a sitting MP or peer by name' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for historical lookups or partial-name searches. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or side effects. It only describes the domain, leaving the agent without critical behavioral information.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently captures the domain. It is front-loaded with the 'revolving door' concept and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must stand alone to guide invocation. It offers only a thematic overview and lacks operational details such as parameter behavior, result expectations, or constraints, making it insufficient for reliable tool usage.

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?

The schema has two parameters (person, organisation) with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions 'former ministers/senior officials' and 'private-sector roles,' which indirectly hints at the parameters, but it does not explicitly define how person and organisation are used or interpreted in search.

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 title 'Search ACOBA appointments' clearly states the verb and resource, and the description explains the specific subject matter: 'former ministers/senior officials taking private-sector roles and the conditions ACOBA imposed.' This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_lobbying and search_contracts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of target queries, and no explicit comparison to sibling tools. It only offers thematic context, so usage guidance is effectively absent.

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

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or behavioral context, and the description only states the basic filter capability. It does not disclose whether the search is exact or fuzzy, how filters combine, pagination, result format, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately names the filtering dimensions. Every word contributes value, with no 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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-optional-parameter search tool, but it lacks information about return format, result ordering, or what constitutes 'evidence.' Given no annotations or output schema, this under-specification could confuse an agent.

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?

The description names both parameters (committee and witness) and indicates they are filters, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema field names. However, it doesn't explain semantics like exact matching, case sensitivity, or how the two filters interact when both are provided, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 clearly identifies the resource (evidence from parliamentary select committee inquiries) and the action (search/filter), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_contracts and search_donations. The title and description align well.

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 context: this tool is for finding evidence from select committee inquiries, filterable by committee or witness. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the resource-specific wording makes the intended usage obvious.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the tool returns a list of matches, that it is a read-only operation, or any details about matching behavior or output format. The phrase 'contract awards' is a noun phrase, not a behavioral statement.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the key filters. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of contract awards with details), pagination behavior, or that omitting filters returns all contracts. For a search tool, this leaves significant ambiguity about the return value.

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?

The description enumerates all four parameters: supplier, buyer, topic, and minimum value. It maps 'topic' to the query parameter and specifies that min_amount is in GBP, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Given 0% schema coverage, this is valuable, though it omits constraints like whether filters are combined.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'UK government contract awards' and specifies the action: filter by supplier, buyer, topic, or minimum value. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools (e.g., search_petitions, search_donations) that target different domains.

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 context explicit: it is for searching government contract awards. It does not name alternative tools, but the resource-specific wording implies when it should be used. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling search tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include title, date, ayes/noes counts, and division_id, and that both Commons and Lords are searched. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or result count limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return-value details. No filler or repetition of schema; every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to send, what comes back, and how to proceed with get_division_results. It omits the list shape and any limits, but overall it is adequate for selection and invocation.

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%, but the description supplies the key semantic: the query is a topic for finding division votes. It does not give examples or explain matching behavior, but for a single free-text parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('Commons/Lords division votes by topic'). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it returns division_id for use with get_division_results, so the search tool's scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this to search divisions by topic, then pass the returned division_id to get_division_results. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_parliament, so it falls short of full when-not guidance, but the downstream relationship is stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and filter dimensions but does not mention how filters combine, return format, pagination, read-only nature, or any data caveats. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by filter details. There is no wasted wording, making it highly scannable and concise.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficient for a search tool with 3 optional parameters. It does not explain the return structure, default behavior when no filters are provided, result limits, or error handling, leaving users to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the filter parameters (recipient, donor, min_amount) and specifies GBP for min_amount, which adds value. However, it does not clarify optionality, matching behavior, or whether filters are AND/OR, so semantics remain 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 clearly states 'donation records' from the Electoral Commission and the purpose 'who funds which party or recipient', making it distinct from sibling tools that cover other data types. It identifies the resource and the action implied by the tool name.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for donation records, differentiating it from other search tools in the same suite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives, but the domain is self-evident.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should explain search behavior such as matching logic, optional parameter combinations, or result format. It only describes the register itself, leaving the agent to guess how the search operates.

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 a single sentence with no filler, adding the ORCL acronym and the firm-client relationship without repeating the title. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return values and usage constraints. It only provides a high-level definition, which is inadequate for an agent to understand what results look like or how to interpret them.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly explain the 'client' and 'lobbyist' parameters. The phrase 'which firms act for which clients' loosely maps lobbyist to firms and client to clients, providing minimal semantic help beyond the parameter names.

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 title clearly states 'Search the lobbying register' and the description specifies the exact register (ORCL) and its function ('which firms act for which clients'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_acoba and search_contracts. The verb and resource are specific.

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 implies the tool is for looking up lobbyist-client relationships but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of other search tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the phrase 'which firms act for which clients' but not made explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic search function and does not mention read-only behavior, result format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the key search dimensions. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines the search criteria but omits details on result format, default behavior when no filters are provided, and whether filters combine. Given its simplicity, it is acceptable but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'by member, keyword, or category,' which maps roughly to the three parameters (member, query, category) and clarifies their roles as search filters. However, it does not explain whether the parameters can be combined or how they interact, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly specifies the resource (MPs' registered financial interests) and the action (search) with three specific dimensions (member, keyword, category). It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like search_contracts or search_donations by focusing specifically on financial interests.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching for MPs' financial interests) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on how this tool compares to other search tools, which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, sorting, or any operational limitations. The read-only nature is only implicit from the word 'search', leaving expectations underspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and lists filter criteria without any redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 search tool with only optional parameters, the description covers the domain and filter options adequately. It omits return value specifics, but the tool's name and typical search behavior make the output predictable. The lack of an output schema lowers the burden.

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?

The description explicitly names all three parameters (minister, counterparty, type) as filter dimensions, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. While it adds no further semantic detail beyond the property names, this clear mapping helps agents understand how to use each parameter.

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 clearly identifies the resource (ministerial gifts and hospitality) and the action (filtering/searching). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search_donations and search_contracts by specifying the exact domain.

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 implies use when looking for ministerial gift/hospitality declarations, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (titles, dates, excerpts, source links) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any limits like pagination or result ordering. This is useful but incomplete for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and wastes no words. It is easily parsed and immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the content types searched and the fields returned. However, it omits potential context such as read-only assurance, result limits, or how to narrow results, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds the concept of 'keyword search,' which clarifies the parameter's role, but it does not discuss query syntax, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's type and length limits.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('keyword search') and resource ('Hansard debates, bills, parliamentary questions, divisions, EDMs, committees, APPGs and GOV.UK consultations'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target narrower domains like divisions or committee evidence.

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 implies a general-purpose search across the parliamentary record, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the more specific sibling tools. There is no direct comparison or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that petitions are public and ranked by signatures, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, response format, or any access requirements, leaving the agent with limited safety information.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information (public petitions, ranking by signatures) without wasting words.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how min_signatures works, or any usage constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameters. 'By topic' vaguely corresponds to the query field, but min_signatures is never mentioned. The description adds little value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 identifies the resource (public petitions) and the ranking criterion (by signatures), distinguishing it from sibling search tools. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the action is implied by the tool name rather than explicitly stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_parliament. The phrase 'by topic' hints at querying capability, but it does not explain why this tool is preferred for petitions or when not to use it.

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