get_lords_interests_register

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 does disclose pagination behavior (default page 0, 20 per page) and an include_deleted flag, which is useful. However it says nothing about permissions, the meaning of 'deleted' records, or result ordering, leaving meaningful 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?

The keyword-stuffed pipe-delimited header and the Args/Returns block add bulk, and the return value is stated twice ('Returns registered interests matching the search criteria' in the header trailer and again in Returns). The useful content is front-loaded, but there is noticeable redundancy.

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 format need not be explained, and the description documents the three otherwise-undescribed parameters. It is close to complete for a search tool, with the main omission being sibling differentiation among the many register/ROI tools.

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, and it does: all three parameters (search_term, page, include_deleted) are described with their defaults and the page size. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it omits search-term syntax or scope (e.g., name vs. category).

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: 'Search the Lords register of interests', with a clear domain (declared/financial interests, outside roles). It does not name the closely overlapping siblings such as search_roi, get_registers_of_interests, or get_member_registered_interests, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from this text alone.

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?

The 'Use when investigating Lords' declared interests, financial interests, or outside roles' line gives a positive use context, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (search_roi, get_member_registered_interests, get_registers_of_interests) that an agent would need to choose correctly.

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