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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's value-add is the cursor lifecycle: 'Follow opaque collection cursors with the same filters; use contentCursor to reconstruct an oversized selected payload.' That explains pagination and reconstruction behavior beyond structured fields. It stops short of describing return shape, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core 'resolve/inspect before searching' purpose, then behavior. The phrase 'or a named reference topic for filter IDs' is slightly opaque, but overall there is little waste.

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 6 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the missing behavioral layer (cursor/reconstruction semantics). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor ambiguity around reference topics.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning to the cursors: cursor requires repeating the same normalized filters, and contentCursor reconstructs an oversized payload. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema's one-line parameter descriptions, justifying a bump.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource pair ('Resolve Parliament filter IDs and inspect source coverage') and positions the tool as a pre-search reference, which distinguishes it from the sibling search/get tools. It is clear what the tool does, though the dense enumeration in the second sentence muddies the core purpose slightly.

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?

The description explicitly frames usage as 'before searching' and maps topic choices to situations ('identifiers for ID namespaces and required selectors, coverage for Hansard date limitations, or a named reference topic for filter IDs'). This gives an agent clear selection context, though there are no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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