zurich_parliament_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a Markdown list and shows current mandates and functions, providing useful context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a brief explanation of functionality and return format. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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 annotations, a detailed input schema, and an output schema (as indicated), the description provides adequate context. It covers the main search criteria but omits details about optional parameters and pagination. It is minimally viable.

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 input schema has descriptions for all five parameters (name, party, commission, active_only, max_results). The description only mentions name, party, and commission, adding no extra semantic value. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for members of the Gemeinderat (city council) with specific verb 'Sucht' and resource 'Mitglieder des Gemeinderats'. It mentions search criteria (name, party, commission) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'zurich_parliament_search', which likely searches parliamentary matters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zurich_parliament_search'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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