search_donationsElectoral Commission donation records, who funds which party or recipient. Filter by recipient, donor, or minimum amount (GBP).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| donor | No | ||
| recipient | No | ||
| min_amount | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It adds context by naming the data source and filter capabilities, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only search, nor does it describe what the returned data looks like (e.g., a list of records, ordering, pagination, or any limitations). The behavior is largely inferred from the tool's name and the phrase 'records'.
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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the resource ('Electoral Commission donation records') and immediately state the filter options. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It states the data source, the purpose, and the filters. Minor gaps include the absence of a mention of result format, limits, or any special behavior like exact vs. partial matching, which would be useful but not critical for a basic search tool.
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 has no descriptions for its three properties (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly naming all three filters ('recipient, donor, or minimum amount') and clarifying that min_amount is in GBP. However, it leaves gaps such as whether donor/recipient are exact matches or partial, and whether min_amount is inclusive.
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 Electoral Commission donation records, with a specific verb ('search'), resource ('political donations'), and data source ('Electoral Commission'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (lobbying, contracts, etc.) by specifying donations and 'who funds which party or recipient'.
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 usage for donation-related queries via the phrase 'who funds which party or recipient', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like search_lobbying are not referenced for contrast.
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.