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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the official API source, a cap of 25 results per call, and the return fields (title, date, house, id). It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but these are less critical given the strong annotation coverage. No contradictions.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences convey the source, filters, limit, return fields, and use case, with no redundant or filler content.

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 annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers the tool's scope: source, filtering options, result cap, and return contents. For a read-only list operation with optional parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to understand inputs and expected results.

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%, with each parameter already documented (take, house, date_from). The description repeats that filtering by house and start date is possible and mentions the 25-per-call limit, adding minimal value beyond the schema. It doesn't elaborate on parameter format or interactions beyond the schema's examples.

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 clearly states the tool returns recent divisions (recorded votes) in the UK Parliament, sourced from the official Hansard API. It specifies the resource (divisions) and action (list recent ones), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_hansard or bill_stages by focusing on near-term voting activity.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to find what the Commons or Lords have voted on recently. It implies usage for recent-vote lookups but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_hansard for historical queries. Still, the context is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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