Search Parliamentary Divisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating it returns 'division summaries (title, date, vote counts, pass/fail)' and that it is the 'authoritative source for UK parliamentary vote records'. No contradiction, and it provides useful behavioral context 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 four sentences, front-loaded with a clear usage directive. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more streamlined. The structure is logical, moving from purpose to return details to next steps.

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 a detailed input schema and output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to know: purpose, usage, return summary, and next-step tool. It also states the data source's authority. For a search tool, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add new meaning to parameters but does connect them to usage ('Omit to browse recent divisions', 'Get the member ID from parliament_find_member'). This is helpful but not essential, earning a baseline 3.

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 specifies the tool searches 'Commons or Lords formal votes by topic, date, or member' and returns 'division summaries'. It distinguishes itself from sibling `votes_get_division` which provides full voter lists. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 starts with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' explicitly stating the condition. It gives clear context for when to use (searching votes) and when to use the sibling (`votes_get_division` for full lists). This is excellent guidance.

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