get_written_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload (statement text, minister, department) and the expand_member default, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for bad IDs, or freshness. Adequate but not rich 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 correctly, but padded with pipe-separated keyword stuffing and a redundant return statement: 'Returns complete statement with minister, department, and full statement content' is repeated verbatim-in-substance in the Returns section. Both mentions could collapse into one.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it does so redundantly. For a simple two-parameter lookup it covers the essentials—what it is, when to use it, and both parameters—though it leaves the sibling-routing question (ID vs UIN vs search) for the agent to work out.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains statement_id as the unique statement ID and expand_member as controlling whether full member details are included, with its default. It does not say what expand_member=false yields instead, leaving that to inference.

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+scope: 'Get a specific written statement by ID.' The 'by ID' qualifier is meaningful because the sibling set includes get_written_statement_by_uin and search_written_statements. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the ID-vs-UIN 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 have a statement ID and need full details including the statement text and minister information' gives a clear precondition and goal. It does not, however, mention the alternative paths (by-UIN lookup, or search to obtain an ID), which would have made the routing decision unambiguous.

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