Search UK Parliament Petitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds what data is returned (title, state, etc.), but does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or pagination beyond schema. The description incorrectly lists 'debated' as a state option, which is not in the schema, causing slight confusion.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the rest are succinct. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The output schema exists and covers return data, but the description introduces an error by suggesting 'debated' is a valid state, which contradicts the schema (only open, closed, all). This misleading information reduces completeness. The tool's pagination is partially covered in the offset schema description, but the description itself omits important behavioral details like default limit and offset recommendations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions filtering by state, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions for query, offset, or limit. No additional guidance on parameter values is provided.

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 it's for searching UK Parliament petitions by keyword or topic, and specifies it returns title, state, signature count, and dates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by declaring it the authoritative source for petitions.

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 opens with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' which explicitly sets usage context. It suggests filtering by state and mentions narrowing to live or historical petitions. However, it does not explicitly forbid use cases or direct to alternatives, but given it's the only petition tool, that's acceptable.

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