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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: the temporal coverage (all parliaments 1990 to present) and the shape of results (committee reports plus company bill submissions). It does not mention auth or edge cases, so not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose/return contents first, coverage second, usage triggers last. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and it still characterizes what is returned. Combined with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the definition is complete enough for an agent 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?

There is a single parameter (ticker) with full schema description coverage (100%), and the schema already documents the NZX ticker format with examples. The description only implies an NZX company input, adding little beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 NZ Parliament select committee activity), plus the exact scope: committee reports mentioning the company and bill submissions by it. This is clearly distinct from adjacent siblings like get_political_connections or get_government_contracts, which cover different parliamentary/government data.

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 final sentence gives explicit trigger scenarios: parliamentary scrutiny, select committees, government oversight, SOE annual reviews, and corporate submissions. It gives clear when-to-use context but does not name an alternative tool or an exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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