list-knesset-members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses internal data model choices (PositionID=54 vs 43), the behavior for mid-term switches, and optional filtering. This goes beyond a simple 'list members' description, though it does not cover potential rate limits or output format details.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filtering options, and important data model nuances. However, it could mention default limit or pagination behavior (though limit is described in schema). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value for the factionId parameter by linking to list-factions, but for other parameters (knessetNum, limit, onlyCurrent) it adds little beyond the schema descriptions. The overall gain is marginal, so score remains 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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'Knesset members with party affiliation for a given Knesset.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-factions by explaining internal data model details (PositionID=54 vs 43), making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (list MKs for a Knesset) and references list-factions to discover faction IDs for filtering. It also explains a behavioral nuance (switched MKs appear per stint), which aids correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly contrast with all sibling tools.

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