get_member_synopsis

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 discloses nothing beyond the basic action — no read-only confirmation, no indication of data freshness, caching, or whether the synopsis is derived versus stored. The 'Returns' line merely restates the purpose sentence and adds no behavioral 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 leading sentences are appropriately front-loaded, but the Args/Returns docstring block is largely redundant: the single parameter's type is in the schema and the return value is covered by an output schema. The Returns line repeats 'Brief synopsis or summary about the member' verbatim from the opening sentence.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and a rough usage cue, and returns need not be explained. What is missing is the disambiguation from the cluster of sibling member-information tools, which is the main gap for an agent choosing among them.

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. It does identify member_id as a 'Parliament member ID', which adds meaning beyond the bare integer type, but it omits format, valid range, and how to obtain a valid ID (e.g. via get_member_by_name or search_members).

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 a brief synopsis or summary about a member by ID.' An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as get_members_biography, get_mp_profile, get_member_focus, or the parallel get_constituency_synopsis, so the boundary of 'synopsis' is left ambiguous.

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 you need a concise overview of a member's background, role, or key information' gives an implied trigger condition, which is better than nothing. But it offers no when-not guidance and no routing to the many sibling member tools (biography, profile, focus), which is the main decision an agent faces here.

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