diet_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the profile's contents (party, constituency, committees, positions), which sets expectations for the response. There is no contradiction, and the additional detail is useful.

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 description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key qualifier 'canonical id' and succinctly enumerates the profile contents. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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, read-only lookup tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (profile attributes), how to obtain the required id (via diet_members_search), and its role relative to siblings. Although there is no output schema, the description's content list partially compensates and fully satisfies the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Canonical member id (from diet_members_search)', and the description repeats this same reference. With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a full profile of a Japanese National Diet member, enumerating key attributes (party, constituency, committees, positions). This specific resource and scope distinguish it from sibling tools like diet_members_search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'by canonical id (from diet_members_search)' establishes a clear prerequisite: the id must come from a prior search. This gives concrete context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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