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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates returned data categories, which is some signal, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether the response is paginated (despite a limit parameter), or how large nested actor data can get. The mutation/read distinction is left to inference.

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?

One dense sentence with no waste, but it spends its whole budget enumerating return fields that an existing output schema already covers, while omitting purpose and usage. The German text under English tool names also sits awkwardly for a router-facing definition.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values — yet that is all it does. Purpose framing, the find_actor alternative, and parameter meaning are all absent, so an agent lacks what it needs to select and call this correctly.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter — no actor_id source or format, no explanation that limit caps nested collections. The tool name weakly implies actor_id semantics, but nothing compensates for the fully undocumented schema.

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 is a noun phrase enumerating what an actor record contains (memberships, speeches, votes, lobby register entries) rather than a verb+resource statement, but an agent can infer this fetches a single actor's full profile. It offers no differentiation from the sibling find_actor, which likely does lookup/search — the one distinction that matters here is unstated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over find_actor or get_relations, and no prerequisites or identifier sourcing hints. The agent must guess that this is the direct-fetch-by-ID path.

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