get_member_contribution_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only summary and exposes pagination controls (skip/take), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, result format, or what the summary aggregates. The disclosure is adequate but shallow for an annotation-free 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 is front-loaded, but the pipe-delimited keyword line and the redundant 'Returns summary of member's parliamentary contributions' / 'Returns: Summary of member's speaking record' duplicate the same point twice. An Args/Returns block is acceptable but here adds little beyond restating the schema.

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 needn't be spelled out in prose. The gaps are instead in usage routing and behavioral context for a 0%-coverage, annotation-free tool: the definition covers the mechanics of calling it but not why or when to choose it.

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 must compensate. Its Args block does document all three parameters, including defaults for skip (0) and take (20), which adds real value. But member_id is described only as 'Parliament member ID' with no format or sourcing hint, so the compensation is partial.

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: 'Get summary of a member's Hansard contributions,' and clarifies it is an overview of speaking frequency/timing rather than full contributions. However, it never names the sibling get_member_hansard_contributions, which is the natural detailed counterpart, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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 see an overview of how often and when a member has spoken' implies the use case but never states when to prefer this over get_member_hansard_contributions, get_contributions, or search_hansard_contributions. No when-not guidance and no named alternatives.

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