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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states no authentication is required, cites the data source (legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives) and licensing (Open Government Licence v3.0), and discloses pagination behavior (20 results per page). This enhances transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the search purpose, followed by returns, jurisdictions, type codes, pagination, and data source. Every sentence delivers relevant information without fluff. It is slightly long given the amount of technical detail, but each component earns its place, making it concise relative to its content.

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 is remarkably complete for a search tool: it specifies the search scope, returned fields, supported jurisdictions, common type codes, pagination behavior, data source, licensing, and authentication requirements. An agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without ambiguity. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 each of the four parameters having descriptions, including the enum values for type and the requirement that at least one of title, year, or type be provided. The description repeats the type explanations and pagination details, adding minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (search), the resource (UK statute book on legislation.gov.uk), and the filtering criteria (title keywords, type, year). It also lists the returned fields (title, type, year, chapter, etc.). The search intent is unambiguous and it differentiates from sibling tools like ukleg.legislation.details, ukleg.legislation.recent, and ukleg.legislation.sections by being the discovery 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 provides clear context on what the tool does (searches across all UK legislation types) and how to iterate through results (page parameter, 20 per page). It does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings, but the sibling names (details, recent, sections) make the differentiation obvious, and the tools' distinct purposes are implied by the description. This falls under 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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