search_legislation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful quirks: ephemeral ids (~) carry ephemeral:true, latest_matching_version_is_latest is false when only an older version matched, and type-specific filters imply legislation_type. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a read/search tool these are less critical.

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?

Five sentences pack a large amount of information: scope, modes, return fields, a subtle result-field condition, filter interaction, ephemeral-id handling, and a usage priority hint. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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?

This is a 17-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description covers the essential behavioral nuances and result fields. Pagination/sorting defaults are left to the schema, which is acceptable. It gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly in most situations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics beyond individual schema entries: type-specific filters imply legislation_type and cannot be mixed, and browsing is achieved by omitting search_term. The Elasticsearch syntax and stemming note already appears in the schema, so the added value is useful but modest.

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 ('Search') and resource ('New Zealand legislation'), enumerating the categories and the two operation modes (search vs browse). It clearly describes the return fields. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling search_legislation_rss, but the 'Use this first to find a work_id or version_id' hint helps define its role among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first to find a work_id or version_id' and explains when to browse (omit search_term, use filters alone). It also warns that mixing type-specific filters is rejected. Missing: does not name alternatives for other tasks (e.g., list_versions, get_legislation_text), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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