search_hansard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches and returns debate transcripts and speeches, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, error handling for invalid dates, or authentication requirements.

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 description is extremely concise: a one-sentence intro, a bulleted Args list, and a one-line Returns. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clean structured format with zero unnecessary words.

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 tool is simple with 4 parameters, and the description covers all of them with format hints. An output schema exists, so details of return structure are not needed. The description mentions the return type (debate transcripts and speeches) adequately for an agent. Lack of error or edge case descriptions is acceptable for a straightforward search tool.

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 entirely documents the parameters. It clearly explains query as a 'search term', date_from and date_to with 'YYYY-MM-DD format' and optionality, and speaker as 'filter by speaker name (optional)'. This adds meaningful formatting and purpose beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool searches parliamentary debates in Hansard from 2015-present, clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools covering different domains (e.g., search_charities, search_legislation). The verb 'search' and resource 'Hansard' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description lists parameters and their optionality, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_questions or get_questions_by_mp. There is no guidance on exclusions (e.g., only 2015-present) or when not to use it.

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