get_lords_written_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating read and what comes back ('the question and its answer'), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid id, permissions, or whether the answer can be absent/pending for a recent question.

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 front-loaded pipe-delimited summary puts purpose and routing in the first line, which is well structured. The trailing Args/Returns block partly repeats the summary ('Returns: The Lords written question') and is somewhat redundant given an output schema 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering the return shape, the description is close to complete. The gap is the id-format/UIN distinction, which matters because a sibling tool performs lookups by UIN.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description's note that question_id comes 'from search_lords_written_questions' is genuinely additive provenance. It does not clarify the id's format or warn that this is not a UIN (the sibling get_written_question_by_uin implies a separate UIN path), which is the remaining ambiguity for a single-param tool.

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+resource ('Get a single House of Lords written question') and reinforces it with 'Lords question by id, HL question and answer'. The 'See also' clause names the two nearest siblings, so an agent can place it in the sibling set without opening schemas.

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 after search_lords_written_questions to read one question' gives explicit sequencing guidance, which is exactly the intended workflow. It names get_written_question as an alternative but never states the condition that selects it (Commons vs Lords), leaving that inference to the name alone.

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