get_commons_division_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the payload contents (aye/no voters, tellers, vote totals), which tells the agent this is a read operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the ID must exist in Commons rather than Lords.

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?

Pipe-delimited and front-loaded with the core purpose, so the key information comes first. It is slightly repetitive, mentioning division/vote details and tellers more than once, but remains compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values did not need describing, yet the description still summarizes them. For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations, this is close to complete; only the absence of any error/prerequisite note keeps it from a 5.

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% for the single required parameter. The description adds only 'Unique Commons division ID number,' which clarifies it is an integer identifier but adds little beyond the schema's type and title. Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get one House of Commons division by ID') and scopes it to a single division, which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_commons_divisions and get_lords_division_by_id. An agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

'Use when you need complete details of a particular vote' gives implied usage context, but it never names the alternative (search_commons_divisions) or states when not to use this tool (e.g., when you only have a search query rather than an ID). Guidance 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.