get_division_resultsFull result of a specific division vote (use the division_id from search_divisions): totals plus per-party ayes/noes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| division_id | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: specific lookups for bills, divisions, members, and ministerial meetings; searches for different datasets like contracts, donations, lobbying, and interests. The only potential pair (search_divisions vs get_division_results) is clearly separated by search vs result retrieval.
The bulk of tools follow a verb_noun pattern with 'search_' for dataset searches and 'get_' for specific lookups. Minor deviations include 'lookup_member' using a different verb and 'get_ministerial_meetings' which is actually a filtered search, but overall the pattern is predictable.
14 tools is well-scoped for a UK Parliament politics domain, covering a broad set of transparency and legislative data without feeling bloated. Each tool addresses a distinct data source, making the count appropriate.
The tool set covers core parliamentary operations (bill status, divisions, members) and transparency data (lobbying, gifts, contracts, donations). A general search tool (search_parliament) mitigates missing dedicated tools for debates or questions, but there are minor gaps like member voting records or a comprehensive bill list.