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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds real value beyond the annotations by citing the upstream source (UK Parliament Oral Questions and Motions API) and disclosing a cost of 1 credit, which no structured field conveys.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, who cares, and where to go for detail, with the cost tag appended. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it identifies the data source and credit cost. The only modest gap is that it does not characterise ordering/recency semantics (how 'most recent' is determined) or pagination.

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% for the single 'take' parameter, including the 1-100 range and the default of 20. The description adds no additional meaning about how many motions to request or how ordering/defaults behave, so the 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 — 'List the most recently tabled early day motions (EDMs) in the House of Commons' — and enumerates the fields returned (title, primary sponsor, date, supporter count). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling early_day_motion_detail, which is explicitly named for the deeper view.

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 names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'For full text and the list of signatories use early_day_motion_detail.' That gives an agent a clear routing rule, though it does not say when this recent-list tool is inappropriate (e.g., historical or topic-specific searching).

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