gb_recent_legislation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a valuable behavioral trait: it explains that the public feed does not support a generic dateFrom filter, so the tool fetches the yearly feed and filters client-side. This discloses a limitation and implementation nuance that an agent should know, going beyond the structured 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It includes necessary implementation details without fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, mapping to feed, and filtering rationale.

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?

With an output schema present and robust annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining the feed source, the client-side filtering rationale, and the optional scoping. This is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including understanding the year-based limitation.

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% and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'since_iso' uses only the year to choose the feed and then filters to on/after the date, and that doc_type scopes the feed. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter behavior beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'UK legislation published since since_iso (ISO 8601 date), newest-first.' This clearly identifies the tool as a date-filtered list of legislation, distinguishing it from siblings like gb_search which searches generally. The optional doc_type scoping further refines the purpose.

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 clear context: this is for retrieving legislation by publication date, optionally restricted to a document type. It explains the underlying feed mechanism and client-side filtering, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is strong context without explicit exclusions.

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