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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds non-obvious operational behavior: historical rows may contain only a name and slug, and pagination requires repeating the same filters via nextOffset. It also clarifies that includeFormer switches to a sparse historical index rather than the complete current roster.

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 definition is three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then historical caveat, then pagination and detail-routing instructions. Every sentence carries useful information with no wasted framing.

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?

An output schema is present, so the description need not explain return structure. It still covers scope, historical sparsity, pagination continuation, and the route to canparl_get_member for detail, which is sufficient for this read-only search tool with complete schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including name lookup modes, limit clamping, and province formats. The description adds little parameter-specific syntax beyond explaining the effect of includeFormer and the sparsity of historical rows, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('current House MPs'), and filter axes (name, riding, province, caucus). It also distinguishes the historical mode via includeFormer and points detailed lookups to canparl_get_member, so an agent can separate it from siblings.

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 states that the default is current MPs, instructs the agent to set includeFormer for the historical name index, tells it to follow nextOffset with identical filters, and directs detail lookups to canparl_get_member. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit sibling alternative.

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