search_legislation_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly: it discloses the legacy endpoint, the 100-entry limit, the need for a separate RSS-only API key, and the actual behavior of search_field where 'content' and 'fulltext' are both sent as content. It also notes paging is ignored. This exceeds what a typical description provides.

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 information-dense but well-organized, starting with the core purpose and then layering in essential behavioral details. It is slightly long, but every sentence serves a purpose—no filler. The structure is logical, moving from action to parameters to usage guidance.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (entries with fields and a subscribable feed URL), the key requirement (API key), limitations (100 entries), and parameter semantics. It is self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains ElasticSearch query syntax, stemming and quoting, clarifies the search_field enum mapping, and describes the limit behavior and its interaction with the feed. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 the tool searches New Zealand legislation via the legacy Atom feed, supports title/full-text search with filters, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_legislation by noting it is a superset for on-demand queries. The verb and resource are specific, and the distinction prevents ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly advises 'For on-demand queries prefer search_legislation, which is a superset,' giving clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative. It also explains the browse-by-filters use case when search_term is omitted, covering both main usage patterns.

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