Find Member of Parliament

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: the tool returns multiple matches for common names (disambiguation) and must be called before other member_id-based tools. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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 efficiently structured: first line states use case and output, second paragraph details return fields, third provides workflow guidance. No redundant sentences; each sentence adds critical information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose), the description covers all necessary aspects: input semantics, output structure, disambiguation, and integration with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema further reduces the description's burden, but it still provides a useful summary.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining how the 'name' parameter is used (query to find members) and what the result contains. It also gives examples ('Starmer', 'Baroness Hale') and notes that partial names work, which is helpful beyond the schema's minimal description.

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's purpose: given a member's name, return their integer member_id. It specifies the output fields (id, party, constituency, house, status) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a prerequisite for member_id-based filtering tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you have a member's name and need their integer member_id') and when not to skip it ('CALL THIS BEFORE any tool that filters by member_id'). It lists specific sibling tools that depend on it and warns against alternative approaches (text-searching by name) using an example (Pannick case).

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