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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance (NZ Parliamentary Register of Interests and Electoral Commission), but the 'Returns...' content is largely duplicated by the output schema and no auth, rate-limit, or freshness behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and then the payload, with no filler. Tight and easy to scan, though slightly long in the enumeration.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, annotations cover safety, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description gives adequate context; only explicit sibling routing and usage conditions are 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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single ticker parameter, the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format, casing, or validity guidance for the ticker beyond what the schema shows, so 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 and resource ('Get political connections for an NZX company') and enumerates the exact contents: MP interests, political donors, and party donation records. The political/parliamentary framing clearly separates it from siblings like get_councillor_interests and get_government_contracts.

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 implies when the tool is relevant (political ties to a company) but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as get_councillor_interests, get_company_connections, or get_hidden_connections, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the returned-content list but not guided.

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