search_acts_of_parliament

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare purpose. There is no mention of result limits, pagination, matching behavior (exact vs partial), permissions, or how broad a 'topic' query can be. The only behavioral statement is a generic 'Returns: Acts of Parliament matching the search term.'

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact usage sentence and a See-also pointer. The Args/Returns block is somewhat boilerplate, and the Returns line is redundant given an output schema exists, but overall there is little waste.

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, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. The description covers purpose and usage adequately but omits behavioral detail (match behavior, result limits, topic-vs-name relationship) that an agent would need to call this correctly. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by explaining the single 'name' parameter and giving concrete examples ('Climate Change Act', 'Human Rights Act'). It does not clarify matching semantics (exact title, substring, keyword) or how 'topic' search relates to a name-only parameter.

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: 'Search for Acts of Parliament (primary legislation) by name or topic.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings via 'See also: get_act_of_parliament, search_bills,' so an agent can route between them. However, the 'or topic' claim is not backed by any parameter in the schema, which muddies the exact scope.

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 clear usage contexts ('researching existing laws, finding legislation on specific subjects, or understanding the legal framework') and names two alternative tools, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g. for bills or secondary legislation), so no explicit exclusions.

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