get_member_staff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about authorization, pagination, or whether staff data is current/limited. For a simple single-record read the gap is modest, but the disclosure is thin.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and Args/Returns sections kept minimal. Slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns line, but no meaningful waste.

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?

The tool is a simple read with one documented parameter and an output schema that already defines the return shape, so the description need not elaborate on returns. Only behavioral edges (auth, freshness) are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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% for the lone parameter, but the description compensates by explaining member_id as the 'Parliament member ID to get staff details for'. That covers the single parameter adequately, though it adds no format or source detail beyond the schema's naming.

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 staff members') and scopes it to 'working for a specific MP or Lord by member ID', which implicitly separates it from committee-oriented siblings like get_committee_staff. It never names an alternative outright, so sibling differentiation 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 when researching parliamentary office staff, researchers, or support personnel' gives a usage context, but it largely restates the resource rather than stating when-not to use it or which sibling to pick instead (e.g. committee vs member staff). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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