search_pr_legislation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns summary rows,' which hints at the output form, but it does not disclose matching behavior, result ordering, or potential empty results. Since the tool is a read-only search, the risk is lower, but the description could add more context about what 'summary' entails. It is not misleading, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb 'Search' and quickly covers resource, criteria, and return type. Every phrase earns its place; there is zero redundancy or fluff.

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 it is a straightforward search tool with four well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return format. It lacks guidance on when to use the sibling get_pr_bill, which would improve completeness, but the essential context for a search tool is present. The schema already covers parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it groups criteria as 'text, chamber, or status' but does not elaborate on the 'status' slug or provide examples. It does not increase understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool searches for Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly measures (proyectos y resoluciones) using specific criteria (text, chamber, status) and returns summary rows. This is a specific verb + resource + criteria, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling get_pr_bill by being a search/discovery tool rather than a fetch-by-ID 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 makes the search purpose clear but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling get_pr_bill. Usage is implied (search to find measures), but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations. This is adequate but lacks explicit direction.

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