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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so the description's job is to add call-specific behavior. It does so by noting that results preserve latest profile fields, that cursor continuation requires unchanged filters, and that contentCursor handles oversized records. Those are valuable operational details beyond the annotations, though it could say more about result ordering or partial-match behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the two most consequential parameter behaviors and the retrieval alternative. No sentence is filler.

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?

Annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It still covers the operational edges an agent needs: historical queries, cursor stability, oversized records, and the handoff to ukparl_get_member.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description restates the asOf restriction and cursor invariants that the schema already documents for those parameters, adding little new semantic detail beyond consolidation.

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 and resource ('Find MPs and peers') and enumerates the searchable dimensions. It also explicitly names the retrieval sibling ukparl_get_member, so an agent can distinguish search from fetch without inspecting 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?

It states when to use this tool versus ukparl_get_member ('retrieve sections with ukparl_get_member') and gives explicit behavioral rules for currentOnly, asOf, and cursor reuse. The asOf exclusion ('accepts name only, without House, party or location filters') tells the agent exactly how to avoid an invalid combination.

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