hansard_get_table_of_contents_xml

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 correctly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve'), but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or output structure. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary; no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'raw XML format' which is valuable. For a one-parameter read tool, it covers the main purpose. Could mention that the output is the raw XML content directly, but it's nearly complete.

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% for the single parameter 'documentId', and its schema description clearly states its purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'table of contents for a specific Hansard day', and format 'raw XML'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like hansard_get_table_of_contents_json (JSON) and hansard_get_fragment_xml (fragment, not TOC).

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 implicitly suggests use for raw XML but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like hansard_get_table_of_contents_json or hansard_get_fragment_xml. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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