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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world semantics. The description adds real operational context beyond them: no implicit session/date scoping, cursor continuation must retain filters, and contentCursor is a lossless same-selection continuation. It does not cover output shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then routes to siblings, then caveats. Dense but each sentence carries information; there is minor redundancy (department/answering-body distinction appears twice) but nothing wasteful.

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?

For a 15-parameter, all-optional search with a full output schema and safety annotations already present, the description supplies what's missing: sibling routing, the absence of implicit scoping, and pagination/oversized-item handling. An agent has enough to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field meaning: department IDs are distinct from answering-body IDs, inAmendableStage=false means unrestricted (not 'non-amendable'), and originatingHouse omission includes all. Some of this duplicates schema text, but the clarifications genuinely reduce misuse.

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 ('Search') on a specific resource ('Westminster bill summaries') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (title, house, session, sponsor, department, stage, type, status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ukparl_get_bill (full records) and ukparl_lookup_reference (ID resolution), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use ukparl_lookup_reference for stage/type/department IDs and ukparl_get_bill for complete records. It also states that no session/date scope is inferred, how to follow collection cursors (preserve filters), and how contentCursor reconstructs oversized items — concrete when/when-not guidance.

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