Get Member Debates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so agent knows it's safe. Description adds details: text-body search matching verbatim, filtering out members without phrase, and 3000-char cap. No contradictions 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?

Description is concise with front-loaded imperative sentence. Three short paragraphs each adding distinct value: usage, prerequisite, behavioral nuance. No wasted text.

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 output schema exists, description covers purpose, prerequisite, distinction from sibling, and a technical cap. Pagination is not needed as schema covers offset/limit. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed param descriptions. Description adds minimal extra beyond schema (e.g., reiterates verbatim match). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 this tool retrieves contributions from a specific member that contain a specific phrase verbatim. It distinguishes from sibling parliament_get_debate_contributions by contrasting text-body search vs. verbatim retrieval of all contributions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (have member_id, want phrase-specific contributions) and when not (use alternative for all contributions). Provides prerequisite to call parliament_find_member first. Clear guidance on usage context.

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