swiss_parliament_persons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'parliamentary activity' without explaining what data is returned, whether results are paginated, what 'activity' includes, or how 'parliament' param affects results. A read tool with zero disclosure about return format or behavior is a gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words. It could arguably benefit from slightly more detail, but it is appropriately brief for a list-retrieval tool.

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 2 params, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling 'swiss_parliament_search' that may overlap, the description should clarify scope, differentiation, and expected output. It only provides a one-line purpose with no pagination, filtering, or output structure details, leaving the agent to guess 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, covering 'parliament' (Parliament code) but not 'limit' (no description in schema). The description adds no parameter detail—it doesn't explain what 'Parliament code' values are valid (ch vs other codes) or what 'limit' controls beyond the default. Half the parameters are undocumented and the description doesn't compensate.

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 states 'Get Swiss parliament members (councillors, deputies) with their parliamentary activity.' It uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (Swiss parliament members) with parenthetical clarification. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'swiss_parliament_search', which could overlap in purpose, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain how this tool differs from 'swiss_parliament_search' or when an agent should prefer one over the other. Without exclusions or alternative naming, the agent has no situational guidance.

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