Get Member Financial Interests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about pagination behavior, the hard cap of 20 items verified via live test, and the max_description_chars parameter for controlling prose length. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with a clear opening directive. Each sentence adds value, covering prerequisite, purpose, pagination, and authoritative source. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return structure (page, pagination fields), and covers all parameters with practical use cases (e.g., raising max_description_chars for forensic work). Complements annotations and schema effectively.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The main description adds overall context like pagination flow and the limit cap rationale, which goes beyond mere schema repetition.

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 returns registered financial interests for a member ID, listing specific categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming parliament_find_member as a prerequisite and noting that web search returns stale data.

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 says when to use (have member_id, need financial interests), instructs to call parliament_find_member first, and provides pagination guidance for prolific members. Also positions itself as authoritative versus web search.

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