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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of results (summaries only, not full voter lists) and the authoritative nature of the source ('Authoritative source for UK parliamentary vote records'). This helps the agent set expectations and avoid assuming full detail is present. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 only three sentences, each with a distinct job: directive, output summary, and follow-up instruction. It front-loads the trigger condition with an all-caps 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and wastes no words. The structure is ideal for an agent scanning quickly.

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 rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the essential extra context: what the tool returns, the workflow to get full details, and the authoritative status. The optional browse behavior (omitting query) is already in the schema. No critical gaps remain.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter explained meaningfully (e.g., limit mentions 'Commons API max-per-page', offset explains pagination with 'has_more', member_id directs to parliament_find_member). The tool description itself only restates the search dimensions (topic, date, member) which are already evident from the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'searching Commons or Lords formal votes by topic, date, or member.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool votes_get_division by explaining that it returns division summaries while the full voter lists require a subsequent call to that tool.

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?

It opens with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching Commons or Lords formal votes by topic, date, or member,' giving explicit conditions. It also tells the agent exactly what to do next: 'AFTER calling, pass division_id + house into votes_get_division for the full member-by-member voter lists,' effectively setting boundaries and directing to an alternative. No exclusions are needed beyond this.

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