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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation via a specific external source, but does not explain response format, pagination, rate limits, or any limitations. The safe read-only nature is implied by 'search' but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and source without any redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is functional but not complete. It states what is searched and via what source, but does not describe the response content, how to structure queries for best results, or relationship to sibling tools. The absence of an output schema places a heavier burden on the description to explain return values, which it does not.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (query as 'Search term' and limit as 'Max results'). The description adds no additional meaning about how to format the query or interpret results, so the baseline score of 3 for 100% schema coverage applies.

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 action ('Search'), the resource type ('UK Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments'), and the source ('legislation.gov.uk'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eurlex_search (EU) and congress_bill_search (US).

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: this tool is for searching UK primary and secondary legislation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context itself implies suitable usage scenarios. A brief note about using uk_act_content for retrieving specific act content would have earned a 5.

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