get_members_history

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 that it returns historical information, but does not state permissions, rate limits, pagination, or explicitly confirm read-only safety beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. The Args and Returns sections are somewhat redundant with the opening sentences, but the overall structure is efficient and not excessively long.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return content adequately. The main gap is lack of differentiation from related member-history siblings, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 for the single parameter. It documents member_ids as a list of Parliament member IDs to get history for, which adds some meaning, but gives no format or constraints beyond the schema's array-of-integers type.

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 historical information for multiple members by IDs, including name history, party affiliations, and membership details over time. It is clear but does not differentiate from related siblings such as get_members_biography, get_member_experience, or search_historical_members.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use it: researching how members' details have changed throughout their careers. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended scenario is clear.

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