search_hansard_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are members matching the term and documents the inclusion defaults (include_former/include_current true) and pagination inputs, but says nothing about result ordering, limits, or rate/auth behavior. Adequate for a simple read-only search, but not rich.

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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded and each line is useful, especially given the zero schema coverage. The opening pipe-delimited keyword line ("Hansard, member search, speakers") is filler that adds little beyond the title.

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 return values need no elaboration, and the description still supplies a Returns note. With 6 params (1 required) at 0% schema coverage, the per-argument documentation makes it complete enough to call correctly, missing only sibling-routing guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains search_term accepts partial names and that house takes 1/'Commons' or 2/'Lords' — the enum-like values are the key information absent from the schema. It documents all six parameters, though a couple of entries merely restate schema defaults.

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 names a specific verb ("Search") and a scoped resource ("members who appear in Hansard", i.e. those who have spoken in Parliament), which meaningfully narrows it against generic siblings like search_members. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many member-search siblings (search_members, search_historical_members, get_member_by_name), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 to find members who have spoken in Parliament by name" implies the usage context but offers no when-not conditions and names no alternatives, despite a crowded sibling space of member and Hansard search tools. The agent must infer when this is preferable to search_members or search_hansard.

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