hansard_get_table_of_contents_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a basic read operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on the output structure or error states. For a minimal tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of 'documentId' as 'The unique document ID for the table of contents'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'table of contents for a specific Hansard day' with output format 'structured JSON payload'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'hansard_get_table_of_contents_xml' which returns XML.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., when to choose JSON over XML, or prerequisites for the documentId). Without explicit usage context, an agent may not select the correct tool for the format needed.

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