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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully scopes the tool to *sitting* members/ministers and lists what is returned, but says nothing about permissions, whether partial-name lookups can return ambiguous results, or what happens with zero arguments (both params are optional).

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 useful resource statement, but the entire content is duplicated verbatim in Swedish and English, doubling length without adding information. Removing the redundant half would make it tighter.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by enumerating returned fields (party, constituency, committees, voting record). However, for a lookup tool with zero required parameters it omits how ambiguity or empty argument sets are handled, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 both parameters (namn, person_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or matching semantics, so the baseline of 3 for schema-driven parameters 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?

The description names a specific resource (a sitting MP or minister) and enumerates the facts returned: party, constituency, committees, tenure, voting record. That is far more concrete than a tautology, and the person-centric focus is distinct from vote/speech siblings, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with tools like partiets_linje or hur_rostade.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The only hint is the word 'sitting', which implicitly excludes former members, but the agent is left to infer when to call vem_ar versus votering or partiets_linje.

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