get_political_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently outlines the types of data returned (MP interests, donors, donation records) and the time range. It omits potential details like pagination or rate limits, but for a simple read-only query, it is adequate.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the data returned and example use cases. It could mention result structure or limits but is largely complete.

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 100% (ticker parameter is well-described). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves political connections for an NZX company, listing specific data sources (MP interests, political donors, party donation records). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on financials or governance.

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 example queries ('political connections for [company]', 'which MPs are connected to [company]?') and specifies the donation date range (2019-2024). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is clear enough for the intended use cases.

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