search_questions

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation without mentioning pagination, rate limits, result ordering, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and four lines for parameter explanations. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format is covered. However, the description lacks usage context, behavioral details, and instructions on filtering or combining parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, search functionality), the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'Search term' for query, 'Filter by MP name' for mp_name, 'Filter by government department' for department, and 'Number of results (default: 20)' for limit. However, it does not provide constraints like allowed values or formatting, so it adds minimal depth beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search parliamentary written questions and answers.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('parliamentary written questions and answers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search other entities like courts, GP surgeries, or MPs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_hansard, get_questions_by_mp, or search_divisions. The description does not specify usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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