diet_members_search

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

The description claims to search 'current' members, but the schema includes an active_only parameter that can restrict to currently-serving members, implying that the default search may include non-current members. This is a subtle inconsistency that could mislead an agent. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish safety, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination limits or default result size.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the primary criteria. No wasted words or redundant detail.

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 search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain what the search returns, what happens when no filters are provided (potential broad result set), or how to refine results. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves gaps in expected behavior.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, each with clear semantics. The description restates these search fields without adding new meaning or clarifying interactions (e.g., whether filters are combined with AND). Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the exact resource ('current Japanese National Diet members'), and enumerates distinct search criteria (name, party, house, constituency). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools like diet_member (singular) and diet_minutes_search.

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 description implies usage for searching Diet members but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over diet_member (which likely retrieves a single member) or other search tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it relies on the reader to infer the intended use case.

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