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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the upstream source (UK Parliament Written Statements API, Commons and Lords) and a credit cost of 1 per call. It discloses no pagination or result-cap behaviour, so it lands just above the annotated baseline rather than well above it.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope and finished with a compact cost tag; nothing is padded. The one nod to extra length is the explanatory aside about what ministers use statements for, which does earn its place by sharpening disambiguation.

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 enumerating return fields (title, minister and role, department, date, House, excerpt), plus source and cost. What remains unstated is result ordering, pagination and whether an empty keyword is permitted — minor gaps for a two-parameter search tool.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both q and take. The description reinforces keyword search ('by keyword'), which maps to q, but says nothing about the take parameter, the 1-100 range, or the default of 10. Baseline 3 applies where the schema carries the load.

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 (Search) and resource (UK ministerial written statements) and immediately explains what a written statement is, so an agent understands the content type without prior knowledge. The exclusions of oral statements and press releases carve it cleanly away from sibling tools such as oral_questions_upcoming and news_search.

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 positive context (formal ministerial announcements of policy changes, data updates, decisions) and explicit negative scope (no oral statements in the chamber, no press releases). It stops short of naming any sibling tool as the alternative, so routing is inferred rather than directed.

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