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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic search function and does not mention read-only behavior, result format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the key search dimensions. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines the search criteria but omits details on result format, default behavior when no filters are provided, and whether filters combine. Given its simplicity, it is acceptable but has clear gaps.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'by member, keyword, or category,' which maps roughly to the three parameters (member, query, category) and clarifies their roles as search filters. However, it does not explain whether the parameters can be combined or how they interact, leaving ambiguity.

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 specifies the resource (MPs' registered financial interests) and the action (search) with three specific dimensions (member, keyword, category). It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like search_contracts or search_donations by focusing specifically on financial 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 description implies when to use the tool (when searching for MPs' financial interests) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on how this tool compares to other search tools, which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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