hansard_get_searchable_pdf_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform behavior. It only notes the document type limitation (pre-1991) but does not disclose important traits like authentication needs, URL expiration, or if the URL is directly downloadable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient and to the point, but could optionally include more detail without becoming overly long.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the basic purpose and document type restriction. However, it lacks details about the nature of the returned URL (e.g., direct download or not), which would improve completeness.

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 high (100% with description for the one parameter). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'unique document ID for the searchable PDF', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description specifies the action (Get the URL), resource (searchable PDF version), and context (pre-1991 historical documents). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like hansard_get_pdf_url, though the distinction is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as hansard_get_pdf_url. The user is left to infer the difference based on the description's mention of 'searchable PDF' and 'pre-1991'.

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