get_registers_of_interests

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. 'Get' and 'published' imply a safe read of public data, and the output schema covers the return shape, but nothing is said about whether results are paginated, scoped by house, or require any auth — a real gap for a zero-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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. The trailing 'Returns: List of published Registers of Interests' largely restates the opening line, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description supplies purpose plus usage context. The main omission is any hint about pagination or result volume, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to document and the schema cannot be under-covered. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter guidance is possible or needed.

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 list of published Registers of Interests.' The phrase 'all available interest registers' implicitly contrasts with single-register siblings like get_register_by_id and get_lords_interests_register, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 to see all available interest registers or understand the transparency framework for parliamentary interests' gives a clear usage context. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. get_register_by_id for a single register, search_roi for filtering) and states no exclusions, so routing among the many interest-related siblings is left to inference.

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