get_members_contact

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 usefully discloses the prerequisite chain (member_id must come from a member search), but says nothing about authorization requirements, error behavior for an invalid ID, or whether Lords members are covered. Adequate but with real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

The opening pipe-delimited summary is front-loaded and effective, but the Args and Returns blocks largely restate what the first line already listed ('phone numbers, addresses, and official contact information' repeats the header list). Redundancy costs it conciseness points.

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?

With a single required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, use cases, and the prerequisite for acquiring member_id. The superfluous Returns section could have been spent instead on edge-case behavior, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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% and the single parameter has no title-level documentation, so the description is the only source of meaning. It identifies member_id as a required Parliament member ID and tells the agent where to obtain it, which is genuinely useful procedural context.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get member contact details and office information') and enumerates the returned fields (phone, email, office address, constituency office). It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly mark itself off from lookalikes such as get_mp_profile or get_members_biography.

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?

It gives clear use cases ('Use for contacting members, finding office locations, or getting official contact details') and a precondition for the parameter ('get from member search first'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it.

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