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.