get_member_registered_interests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does characterize the payload ('declared interests like directorships, consultancies, and gifts'), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether an absent member/house errors or returns empty. Adequate content context, incomplete operational context.

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 purpose and usage trigger are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args/Returns block is compact. The Returns line is thin but harmless, and no sentence is redundant with the others.

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 the description need not detail return structure, and the when-to-use, parameter encoding, and sibling pointers are all present. The remaining gap is disambiguation between this tool and get_lords_interests_register/search_roi, which matters given how many interest-related siblings exist.

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 for the non-obvious parameter: 'house - 1 or Commons, 2 or Lords' supplies an encoding the schema's unconstrained anyOf does not. The member_id line largely restates the schema, so it is not a full compensation.

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 registered interests of a member') plus the two scoping keys (ID and house), and enumerates the content type (directorships, consultancies, gifts). It points at siblings via 'See also' but does not explain how it differs from them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('investigating potential conflicts of interest, financial interests, or external roles') and names two alternatives (search_roi, get_lords_interests_register). However it never states when to prefer those alternatives over this tool, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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