search_legislation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on no results. Only parameter names and defaults are mentioned.

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 with three short lines. Every piece of information earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. No superfluous 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not cover return values, but it lacks context on features like boolean operators, date filters, jurisdiction, or wildcards. The tool is for UK legislation, yet no advanced search capabilities are hinted at.

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 adds meaning to both parameters: 'query: Search query' and 'limit: Number of results (default: 20)'. This explains what each parameter does beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though 'Search query' is somewhat vague.

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 clearly states 'Search UK legislation by keyword', which provides a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'search_companies' or 'search_charities' by explicitly naming 'UK legislation' as the target.

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 implies usage when searching UK legislation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No guidance on limitations or prerequisites is given.

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