get_hansard_first_year

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does establish this is a pure read that yields a single year value, but it says nothing about behavior when no records exist, error conditions, or whether the result is cached/static.

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 opening line and the closing "Returns" sentence restate the same fact (the first/earliest year with records), and the pipe-separated keyword block adds bulk. Front-loaded and short, but with redundancy that does not earn 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?

An output schema exists and there are no parameters, so the description only needs to convey the single-value nature of the result, which it does. Minor remaining gap is the empty/no-data case, which is not addressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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+resource: retrieves the earliest year for which Hansard records exist. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. However, it does not differentiate itself from related range/sibling tools such as get_hansard_last_sitting_date or get_hansard_calendar.

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?

"Use to determine the historical range of available Hansard data" implies a use case, but gives no when-not guidance and names no alternative for the complementary 'latest' boundary. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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