parlament_search_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the default active_only=True behavior and canton format, though it omits pagination details which are covered by the schema.

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 with a single sentence, a use case tag, and important notes tag. No wasted words; all content is valuable and well-structured.

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?

Given the seven parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, typical use cases, and key behavior. It lacks explanation of offset/limit but those are standard and schema-defined. Overall adequate for a search tool.

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 description adds moderate value over the schema: it reinforces canton format and active_only default, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for all parameters (e.g., party, council, last_name). With 0% overall schema description coverage, the tool description compensates partially but not heavily.

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 searches for members of National and Ständeräte, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning synergy with parlament_search_business for identifying motion authors. The use case example reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios (finding all Zurich members or members of a party) and notes important defaults and format requirements (active_only=True, canton as 2-letter code). It also guides users to combine with a sibling tool.

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