get_constituency_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the return content ('name, boundaries, and related data'), implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about missing-ID/error behavior or permissions, which is a notable gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 pipe-delimited keyword stuffing ('constituency lookup, find constituency, constituency info') is redundant filler that repeats the tool name rather than adding information. The core purpose, usage condition, and Args/Returns structure are otherwise front-loaded 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers purpose, usage condition, and the required parameter. For a simple one-parameter read lookup this is largely complete, with only error behavior left unstated.

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 parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add limited meaning ('constituency_id: Unique constituency ID number'), clarifying it is an integer identifier, but provides no format or sourcing guidance beyond that.

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 a constituency by ID with full details') and makes the ID-keyed lookup scoping explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_constituencies (list) or get_constituency_synopsis, so it falls short of a 5 but is clear on its own.

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 have a constituency ID and need full details about it' gives a usable precondition. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, even though the sibling set contains several overlapping constituency tools the agent must choose between.

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