Search UK Parliament Petitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds return field detail and state filter examples, but includes 'debated' which is not in the schema enum, creating a potential contradiction that reduces clarity.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, list returns, and establish authority. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers purpose, returns, and state filtering, but lacks pagination guidance and has a minor enum mismatch. Output schema existence partially fills gaps but pagination behavior is undocumented in description.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, only restating that search is by keyword/topic and filtering by state.

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 is for searching UK Parliament petitions by keyword or topic, and specifies the resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from siblings as the only petitions tool.

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 says 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK Parliament petitions', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but siblings contain no other petitions tool, making it uniquely appropriate.

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