get_party

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds detail beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned (members, position, filiation, external links). No contradictions.

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?

Description is one sentence that efficiently states the purpose and contents. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one well-described parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned. However, it does not mention response format or pagination (if any), leaving minor gaps.

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 'slug' is fully described in the input schema with examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Obtenir' (get) and resource 'fiche complète d'un parti politique' (complete record of a political party), listing contents (members, position, affiliation, external links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_parties (likely just listing) and search_politicians.

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 retrieving full party details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like list_parties, search_politicians, or get_politician. No exclusion conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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