search_legislation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It only notes the source is 'consolidated', which offers minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists filter options without redundancy.

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?

The description covers high-level filtering but omits details about pagination (limit/offset), response format, or the behavior of the 'include_derogated' parameter. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, additional context would be beneficial.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filters (e.g., 'dates, title, department') that correspond to schema parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with the clear verb 'Search' and specifies the resource 'consolidated Spanish legislation'. It lists key filtering dimensions, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like search_grants or search_ine_tables.

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 usage for legislation search but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_legislation_details or search_recent_boe. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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