get_laying_bodies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (IDs and names) and the read-only nature implicitly, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or ordering. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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 content is front-loaded, but the description is repetitive: 'Returns list of laying bodies with IDs and names' appears twice, and the opening keyword pipe-list is redundant scaffolding that adds no meaning.

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 zero-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description is complete enough — the agent knows what it fetches and roughly what comes back. It slightly over-explains the return value that the output schema already covers.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add on parameter semantics.

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 and clarifies the domain: 'Get all bodies that can lay statutory instruments before Parliament'. This distinguishes it from generic list tools like get_departments or get_answering_bodies, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The keyword list ('laying body, department, government organisation, JCSI') implies a discovery context but offers no explicit condition for choosing this tool over the many other list endpoints.

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