get_erskine_may_parts

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 return cardinality ('all 6 parts') and payload shape ('titles and descriptions'), which is useful, but says nothing about whether results are static/cached or how this navigational listing relates to the more granular sibling lookups.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and one usage clause. Slightly redundant: the inline sentence 'Returns list of all parts with titles and descriptions' is repeated by the formal Returns block, and an output schema already exists.

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 documented, yet they are (redundantly). For a zero-parameter listing tool, everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, though the sibling-routing guidance is thin.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies since schema coverage is irrelevant here.

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 ('List all parts of Erskine May') and scopes it as the procedure structure/table of contents. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_erskine_may_part, get_erskine_may_chapter, and get_erskine_may_section.

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 to navigate the 6 major parts of parliamentary procedure' gives implied usage as a top-level entry point, but it never says when to prefer this over get_erskine_may_chapter, get_erskine_may_section, or search_erskine_may. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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