Browse a collection by year

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is low; the description adds the dual-mode return shape and the offset/limit paging behavior, which is genuine extra context. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and the shape of the per-year count vs full-entry responses, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then collection semantics, then a usage cue; each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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 needn't be explained. The description covers both modes, all collection values, paging, and a use-case trigger, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly alongside its many siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains `year` semantics per collection (adoption year, hearing year, etc.), that offset/limit drive paging, and lists all four enum values for `collection`. It does not convey the year bounds (1850-2300) or limit cap (500), so not fully compensatory.

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 (Lists) and resource (a collection) and precisely describes the two operating modes: without `year` returns counts per year, with `year` returns every entry paged by offset/limit. It enumerates the four collection values with their year semantics, so an agent can distinguish this from the search/get siblings without opening schemas.

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 a concrete when-to-use trigger ('what was published in 2025' questions that a keyword search cannot express), implicitly routing away from keyword search. It does not name the actual sibling (e.g. leginova_search or leginova_advanced_search) or state when-not conditions, so it falls short of explicit alternative naming.

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