search_roi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a prerequisite ('get from member search first') and the return contents, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, read-only safety, or whether results are exhaustive versus filtered.

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 keyword-stuffed pipe-delimited block is noisy, and the returns statement is duplicated nearly verbatim between the summary line and the 'Returns:' section. Purpose and usage are front-loaded, but redundancy and keyword padding dilute the signal.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a See-also list. Since the output schema exists, repeating the return fields is unnecessary but harmless; overall it is complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single member_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context ('Parliament member ID. Required: get from member search first'), which aids sourcing, but gives no format or type detail beyond the schema's integer.

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 ('Search member's Register of Interests for financial and business declarations') and enumerates the content types covered. It is clearly distinct from generic member tools, though the See-also siblings (get_member_registered_interests, interests_categories) are named without explaining how they differ.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use contexts: 'investigating potential conflicts, researching member finances, or checking declared interests.' However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not clarify when to prefer it over the listed sibling tools like get_member_registered_interests.

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