hansard_search_by_year

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

The description adds behavioral context: coverage from 'September 1991 to present.' However, with no annotations provided, it could further disclose any limitations, behavior on invalid years, or if it is a read-only operation. The coverage note is useful but incomplete without annotations.

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 concise sentences front-loading the action and follow up with coverage context. Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words.

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 required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, return type (list of sitting dates with links), and temporal coverage. No additional context needed.

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?

The single parameter 'year' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces the year usage and coverage but adds little beyond the schema. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate.

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 action: 'Search all Hansard records for a specific year.' It specifies the resource and scope ('all Hansard records'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like hansard_search_by_date (by date range) and hansard_search_by_bill (by bill).

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 searching a specific year but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hansard_search_by_date or hansard_search_by_speaker. No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.

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