Search Parliamentary Divisions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the pagination contract ('While has_more is true, re-call with offset=offset+returned'), the response shape, and the required next step. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the trigger condition. Every sentence earns its place: usage, return summary, pagination rule, follow-up action, and source authority. The formatting, including line breaks and the 'AFTER calling' cue, aids scanability.

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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the missing workflow context: how to page, what fields come back, and how to proceed to member-level results. Nothing an agent needs to call and use this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter is already well-documented in the schema, including the Commons/Lords limit discrepancy and member_id sourcing. The description only loosely reinforces 'topic, date, or member' and pagination without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'searching Commons or Lords formal votes by topic, date, or member.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the related sibling tool law_votes_get_division by positioning this tool as the search step and the sibling as the follow-up for full voter lists.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching Commons or Lords formal votes') and tells the agent to follow up with votes_get_division. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative, though the downstream role is clear.

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