parliament_guide

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 implies a read-only help/reference operation and describes the kind of guidance returned, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the topic options are clearly separated in an Args section. There is some redundancy in the pipe-separated phrases like 'tool help, API reference, how to use tools, available tools' and repeated 'detailed guidance,' but it remains scannable.

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 guidance tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return content, and topic options. It is only missing explicit differentiation from related help/workflow siblings, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and no enum, but the description compensates by listing the valid topic domains such as members, bills, votes, committees, hansard, and all. It does not explain invalid-topic behavior, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: getting detailed guidance for a Parliament data domain. It also says what the guidance contains, such as tool names, parameters, and workflows. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like parliament_workflow or get_cli_reference, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when you need detailed information about tools in a specific area. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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