get_member_hansard_contributions

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 scope ('all contributions by that member in the specified debate'), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, volume, or whether the debate_section_id must be pre-resolved. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 opening keyword fragment ('Hansard, member speeches |') adds noise, and the 'Returns:' block restates verbatim the first paragraph's claim that it returns all contributions by that member in the debate. The Args section is efficient, but the duplication costs it.

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 spelled out; the description nonetheless gives a one-line summary. With both parameters sourced and the scope defined, an agent has what it needs, though nothing covers failure modes or empty results.

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%, yet the description compensates well by giving provenance for both parameters: member_id 'from members API' and debate_section_id 'from search_hansard'. That tells the agent where to obtain each value, which the bare integer/string schema does not.

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 all speeches by a specific MP/Lord in a debate', with a scoping clause ('extract just one member's contributions') that separates it from the broader contribution search tools. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the filter-by-member-in-one-debate intent is unmistakable.

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 line 'Use to extract just one member's contributions from a debate' implies the use case, but no alternative (e.g. search_hansard_contributions, get_contributions) is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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