parliament_workflow

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

With no annotations the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose what comes back: 'recommended sequence of tools with parameters and expected data flow.' However, it never states that the tool only plans and does not execute the research, nor anything about read-only safety or latency, which is meaningful behavioral context for a meta-tool.

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 with purpose, then trigger, then return shape, then the Args block. The pipe-delimited keyword list partly restates the first sentence, a minor redundancy, but the overall length is proportionate and no sentence is wasted.

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 the description needn't enumerate return values, and it still summarizes them. Purpose, trigger, and query examples are all present; only the plan-vs-execute distinction is left implicit for this one-param planning tool.

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 a single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving three concrete example queries ('How did my MP vote on climate?', 'Track a bill's progress', 'Find committee evidence on NHS') that define the expected granularity. It adds real meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 step-by-step workflow guidance for a parliamentary research task') and is immediately distinguishable from the ~180 sibling data-retrieval tools, since it plans rather than fetches. The keyword line reinforces the scope without obscuring it.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when you have a specific research question and need to plan which tools to use in sequence.' That clearly separates it from direct lookup tools like search_hansard or check_mp_vote. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, so it falls one step below a 5.

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