search_health_legislation

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields and hints at a mode switch, but never explains what mock/live/snapshot actually mean, whether results are ranked or truncated, or any auth/rate constraints. Read-only nature is inferable from "search" but never stated.

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-loads the selection guidance, then purpose, then return shape, then an example — a sensible order with little filler. The example itself is misleading, but the prose earns its place.

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?

No output schema, and the description partly compensates by naming returned fields. However, the wrong parameter name in the example and the unexplained sourceMode values leave real gaps for a tool whose schema documents nothing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partly fails: the example passes "searchTerms", a parameter that does not exist in the schema (the schema has "question"). sourceMode appears in the example but its three enum values are never explained.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Searches health-related legislation by keywords") plus the return shape (titles, document IDs, matched provisions). It also explicitly separates itself from prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack, so an agent can choose between the two 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?

Explicit routing: prefer the sibling pack tool for end-to-end questions, use this one only when legislation search is needed in isolation. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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