list_recent_legislation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is an index-backed recency listing ('since the last index update') and that it is a passive list operation, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when the index is stale.

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, no filler, purpose first and the usage hint second. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what a returned legislation item contains or whether results are guaranteed to be newest-first. The phrase 'since the last index update' also presumes caller state the description never explains.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented there with default and max. The description adds no meaning about limit or about how many recent bills are typical, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing the most recently introduced NYC Council legislation, with scope ('NYC Council') and ordering intent ('most recently introduced'). It is clearly distinct from get_bill or get_bill_history, though it never names the closest sibling, search_legislation_live, which an agent may confuse with a recency listing.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: catching bills introduced since the last index update, i.e. incremental refresh rather than targeted lookup. It does not state when to prefer search_legislation_live or what to do if the caller has no prior index state, but the framing still tells the agent the right context.

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