hansard_search_by_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'finds mentions and debates', omitting key traits like read-only nature, pagination, auth requirements, or behavior on no matches. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, or edge cases. Minimal viable completeness given the simplicity.

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% (parameter 'billName' documented with partial matching). The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating 'by bill name', 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 ('Search'), resource ('Hansard records'), and scope ('by bill name', 'finds all mentions and debates'). It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like hansard_search_by_year or hansard_search_by_speaker.

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 implies use for bill-based search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tool names hint at other search dimensions, but the description does not leverage that context.

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