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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: result ordering, the exact fields surfaced, the source (UK Parliament Bills API), explicit coverage limits, and a cost of 1 credit. It stops short of describing result volume or whether a total count is returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and ordering, followed by scope exclusions, source and cost. The audience clause is the weakest element but is short and immediately followed by the limits that matter for correct invocation.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, source, scope limits and cost. The only gap is that it does not say whether results are effectively capped/paged or how fresh the underlying data is, which matters for a 'recent' monitoring 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 description coverage is 100% — the sole 'take' parameter already documents range 1-100 and default 10. The description adds only the ordering meaning ('most recent first') that makes 'take' interpretable as 'the N newest Acts', but never references the parameter or clarifies behaviour above 100 or absence of paging.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists bills receiving Royal Assent that became Acts of Parliament), plus ordering ('most recent first') and the fields returned (Royal Assent date and Act title). It also bounds the scope against adjacent data ('UK Parliament Acts only, not commencement dates or statutory instruments'), which separates it from sibling tools such as statutory_instrument_search and bill_search.

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?

Usage is only implied through an audience statement ('compliance, HR and legal teams who need to hear about new Acts quickly') plus exclusions (no commencement dates, no Act text, see legislation.gov.uk). It never names a sibling alternative such as legislation_search, bill_status or bills_recently_updated, so the agent must infer routing itself.

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