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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the default register scope and the timeout risk of the larger historical request, which is operationally important and not derivable from annotations alone.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core capability comes first, then the caveat, then the sibling pointer. The phrase 'register all includes earlier source records' is slightly compressed but still readable.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description only needs to cover invocation guidance and caveats — which it does via the register/timeout warning and the get_member pointer. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 8 parameters including register scope and timeout behavior. The description repeats the register/timeout story rather than adding new syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('members and ministers') with the filterable facets (name, party, constituency, service status). It also separates itself from the sibling riksdag_get_member by assigning ID-based assignment history to that tool, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly routes ID-based lookups to riksdag_get_member and explains the register=all trade-off ('larger cold request that may time out'). It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to search at all, but the alternative routing gives strong context.

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