get_lords_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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the response shape (content/not content voters, tellers, vote totals), which implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about failure modes for an invalid or missing division_id, permission requirements, or whether the record always exists.

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 front-loading puts the core action first, and the return-value summary is compact. The 'Args:' block is boilerplate but small. No sentence is wasted, though the pipes are terser than ideal prose.

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-only lookup with an output schema already declaring the return structure, the description covers what the tool does and what comes back. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling division tools, which is a routing concern more than a completeness one.

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. It only restates the parameter as 'Unique Lords division ID number', which adds no format, range, or provenance detail (e.g. where to obtain a valid Lords division ID). It is marginally better than the bare integer in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve one House of Lords division by ID, and enumerates the payload (vote details, division list, tellers). The 'Lords' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_commons_division_by_id, but no sibling is named outright and the overlap with get_division_details is not addressed.

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 a usable trigger condition. However, it never contrasts this with the many nearby alternatives (search_lords_divisions for lookup, get_division_details, get_lords_divisions_grouped_by_party), so the agent must infer when this single-record fetch is preferable.

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