get_spokespersons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-style lookup returning a list with portfolios, and gives the ID prerequisite. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result ordering, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 pipe-delimited summary is efficient and scannable, with Args/Returns sections. Minor redundancy: 'Returns spokespersons with their portfolios' appears both in the header line and the Returns block.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, yet the description still clarifies them; the prerequisite for party_id is covered. Given no annotations, a bit more on read behavior or result shape would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and the single required parameter would otherwise be undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that party_id is a Party ID and, importantly, how to obtain one via parties_list_by_house — meaningful added value beyond the bare integer schema.

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 party spokespersons) and immediately disambiguates with synonyms — shadow ministers, opposition frontbench, party speakers — so an agent knows exactly what entity is returned. The scope (per party, with portfolios) is clear.

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?

Gives a usage context ('Use to find who speaks for a party on specific policy areas') and a prerequisite pointer to parties_list_by_house for obtaining IDs. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a competing sibling for the same job, so it falls short of a 5.

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