get_contributions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only aggregation ('Get summary') and indicates the return is a summary, but says nothing about permissions, scope of aggregation, or how the summary is composed, leaving gaps for a no-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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no filler. The Args/Returns block is somewhat boilerplate, but overall the definition is tightly sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and the single parameter is documented. The main gap is the unresolved overlap with get_member_contribution_summary, but for a simple read tool the definition is largely complete.

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 schema only supplies the type (integer) and required flag. The description adds that member_id is the 'Parliament member ID to get contribution summary for', which clarifies intent but adds no format or sourcing details beyond the obvious.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource - summarizing parliamentary contributions (speeches, questions, interventions) for one member - which an agent can understand without opening the schema. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling get_member_contribution_summary beyond a 'See also' pointer, so the distinction remains ambiguous.

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?

It provides context ('use when analyzing an MP or Lord's parliamentary activity and participation levels') and lists related tools, but gives no selection logic between this tool and the near-duplicate get_member_contribution_summary or search_hansard_contributions. Usage is implied rather than resolved.

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