search_ministerial_giftsGifts and hospitality declared by ministers, filter by minister, counterparty, or type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| minister | No | ||
| counterparty | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool searches a register of ministerial declarations, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether results are limited, paginated, or ordered. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but other behavioral traits (e.g., required permissions, output format) are not addressed.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the domain and filter options in a compact way. Every word contributes to the description; 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?
For a simple search tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the core domain and filter options. However, it omits details about what records are returned, whether results include full details, or any special behaviors. This leaves some gaps but is adequate 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three filter dimensions (minister, counterparty, type) but merely repeats the schema property names without adding meaning. For example, 'counterparty' is not defined, and the type enum values are not elaborated. This provides minimal value beyond structured fields.
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 tool's function: searching gifts and hospitality declared by ministers, with explicit mention of filter dimensions (minister, counterparty, type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_donations or search_contracts, making the purpose 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 implies when to use the tool (when searching ministerial gift/hospitality declarations) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with related search tools, so usage context is only implied.
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.