order_order

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 the returned content (system prompt and quick reference for 233 tools) and activation phrase, but does not state side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or whether other tools depend on it being called first.

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 purpose and is reasonably short. The keyword list ('order, begin, initialize, start session, parliament mode') is functional but slightly redundant, keeping it from being maximally concise.

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 session-initializer with an output schema, the description explains purpose, timing, activation, and return content adequately. It omits how this tool relates to sibling guidance tools, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are not a concern. Baseline 4 applies because there is no parameter meaning the description needs to compensate for.

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: 'Start UK Parliament research session,' and adds that it returns a system prompt and quick reference for all 233 tools. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling guidance tools such as parliament_guide or parliament_workflow.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use at the START of any parliamentary research to get proper context and guidance,' and specifies an activation phrase. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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