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.