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 discloses that petitions are public and ranked by signatures, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, response format, or any access requirements, leaving the agent with limited safety information.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information (public petitions, ranking by signatures) without wasting words.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how min_signatures works, or any usage constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameters. 'By topic' vaguely corresponds to the query field, but min_signatures is never mentioned. The description adds little value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 identifies the resource (public petitions) and the ranking criterion (by signatures), distinguishing it from sibling search tools. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the action is implied by the tool name rather than explicitly stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_parliament. The phrase 'by topic' hints at querying capability, but it does not explain why this tool is preferred for petitions or when not to use it.

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