edms_for_member_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the result ('List of Early Day Motions signed by the member') and the 'all' scope, implying an exhaustive read, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, session coverage, or whether the MP must be current all relevant for a signatures listing.

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?

The purpose and routing sentence are front-loaded with zero waste. The trailing 'Returns' block is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but the overall block is short and readable.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, use case, alternative, parameter meaning, and result type. The remaining gap is how the caller sources member_id and whether results are scoped to a session or all time.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single member_id parameter. It identifies the parameter as a 'Parliament member ID', which is better than raw schema, but gives no format hint or pointer to a lookup tool (e.g., get_member_by_name / search_members) for obtaining the ID.

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 (Get), resource (Early Day Motions), and scope (signed by a specific MP), which is exactly the discriminating detail against the sibling search_early_day_motions. An agent can tell what this returns 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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('when you want to see what issues a particular member has supported or their political priorities through EDM signatures') and points to the alternative, search_early_day_motions. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., no per-member filtering needed, or wanting EDM text rather than signature lists).

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