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.