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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real value beyond them: default ordering (most recently tabled first), the fields surfaced (department due to answer, due date), the upstream source (Commons and Lords), and a 1-credit cost. It omits volume/pagination behaviour, which is the only notable behavioural gap.

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 core definition, then scope, audience and source in descending importance; no sentence is redundant. The credit-cost note is a useful operational aside rather than filler, though the audience sentence could be trimmed without loss.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only, output-schema-less list tool, the description covers what is returned, in what order, from which source, and clarifies a likely misinterpretation (lateness). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 optional parameter (take) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 1-100 range and default of 20. The description does not mention page size or a cap, adding no meaning beyond the schema; 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 ("List UK parliamentary written questions") plus a precise scope qualifier ("still waiting for a government answer") that separates it from written_question_search and written_question_detail. The ordering and returned fields are also named, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear use context ("useful for public affairs teams tracking what departments have been asked") and a scope exclusion ("it does not judge whether a department is late"), which prevents misuse for lateness monitoring. It does not name the sibling tools that would cover answered questions or detail lookups, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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