parliament_guide

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

No annotations are provided, but this is an informational lookup with no destructive or auth-sensitive behavior, so the burden is low. The description does disclose the return content ('tool names, parameters, and typical workflows'), which adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the pipe-delimited segments repeat the same idea three times ('tool help, API reference', 'Use when you need detailed information about tools', 'Returns comprehensive guidance including tool names...'). The Args block earns its place; the rest is padded.

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 single-parameter help tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies purpose, a usage condition, and the full topic enumeration. The notable gap is not routing the agent away from similar reference siblings.

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% with one required parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by enumerating the thirteen valid topic values (members, bills, votes, committees, hansard, questions, interests, live, legislation, procedures, all, conventions, workflows). This is meaningful guidance not present in the structured schema, though it lacks per-value meaning.

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 detailed guidance for a specific Parliament data domain') and clarifies the payload ('tool help, API reference, how to use tools'). It is recognizably the meta/help tool among domain-specific siblings, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like get_cli_reference 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?

'Use when you need detailed information about tools in a specific area' gives an implied condition, but it largely restates the purpose and names no alternatives or when-not scenarios. The agent is left to infer how this differs from the other reference-style siblings.

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