UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the summary text may be truncated based on 'max_summary_chars' and to check 'summary_truncated' in the response, which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 in the first sentence, followed by specific return details and usage notes in subsequent sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity is moderate (retrieving detailed bill data), annotations cover safety and behavior, and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is complete. It explains key return fields and truncation behavior, which complements the structured data without needing to detail all output values.

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%, providing full details for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'max_summary_chars' in the context of summary truncation, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full detail for a specific parliamentary bill'), specifying it returns sponsors, current stage, long title, summary, and Royal Assent date. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bills_search_bills' by focusing on detailed retrieval of a single bill rather than searching multiple bills.

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 context by mentioning 'bill_id from bills_search_bills results', guiding users to first search for bills. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as for general searches or other parliamentary data, leaving some ambiguity.

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