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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior; it only states that the tool provides evidence and filter options, without describing result behavior (e.g., list vs. single item, pagination, or response format). The description doesn't say whether it's a read-only operation (likely, but not disclosed) or any side effects; thus it fails to fulfill behavioral transparency beyond the minimal.

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 packs both the resource and the filter options, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the subject 'Evidence given...' which immediately orients the user.

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 is relatively simple (2 optional string params, no output schema), and the description covers its core purpose and filtering. However, since no annotations or output schema exist, the description should clarify what the response looks like or any constraints (e.g., whether evidence is full-text searchable), leaving some gaps for a fully self-contained description.

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 says 'filter by committee or witness,' which directly maps to the two schema properties, adding meaning beyond the bare parameter names. However, it doesn't provide example formats or further semantic nuances (e.g., exact matching vs. full-text search), so the compensation is minimal.

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 tool as searching committee evidence ('Evidence given to parliamentary select committee inquiries'), and specifies the filtering dimensions ('by committee or witness'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contracts or search_donations, which search other parliamentary data types.

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 this tool—when needing committee evidence—and mentions the two filter options, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Since the sibling list contains many other search_* tools, the lack of explicit differentiation to other evidence-like searches (e.g., search_parliament) limits the guidance.

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