gb_search_govuk

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the API is keyless, under the Open Government Licence v3.0, and confirmed live as of 2026-07-07. It also provides live-verified totals for legally weighty document types, adding concrete behavioral context about the upstream data source and filtering behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds useful API mapping and document type details. The long list of type counts is valuable but somewhat verbose, so it earns a strong score rather than a perfect one.

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?

Annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to add real-world context. It provides the exact endpoint, license, live verification date, and document type options, making it complete for agent selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The main description adds a curated list of valid document_type slugs with raw counts, directly enriching the document_type parameter beyond the schema's "see above" note. Other parameters are not further elaborated, so it stays slightly above baseline.

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 "Search GOV.UK documents - tribunal decisions, HMRC manuals, CMA cases and more," specifying the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gb_search_case_law by naming the GOV.UK API and listing concrete document types, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool by listing supported content types and noting it maps to the GOV.UK Search API. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like gb_search_case_law, so it provides context but no exclusions.

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