get_si_procedures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool returns all procedures with IDs and names, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, size of the result set, or whether the procedure type values are enumerable — meaningful gaps for a 'get all' endpoint.

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 short, but the same fact is stated three times ('Get all statutory instrument procedures', 'Returns list of SI procedures with IDs and names', and the Returns block repeating it verbatim). The keyword-pipe segment at the top is also unstructured, so the front-loading is noisy rather than efficient.

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?

The output schema exists and covers the return shape, so the description need not restate it. For a simple zero-parameter reference lookup the definition is essentially complete, with only the redundant repetition and absent pagination/ordering note holding it below the top score.

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 is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond noting that no filter input is accepted, which it implicitly does by framing the call as returning all procedures.

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 ('List SI procedures') and enumerates the procedure types (affirmative, negative, made affirmative), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_si_procedure. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly call out the singular sibling as the alternative.

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-to-use guidance is given. The description does not explain the relationship to get_si_procedure or search_statutory_instruments, so an agent must infer that this is the unfiltered reference-list lookup.

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