UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses that results are paginated and describes the return format ('bill summaries including title, current stage, and whether it has become an Act'). While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) and idempotency, the description adds practical implementation details about the response structure and pagination 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 perfectly structured and concise: two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose, search parameters, return format, and relationship to sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 search functionality, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and relationship to sibling tools, making it fully adequate for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description mentions the search dimensions (keyword, session, house, stage) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 UK parliamentary bills') and resources ('bills'), specifying search dimensions (keyword, session, house, legislative stage) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like bills_get_bill. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('paginated page of bill summaries') and how it differs from the sibling tool for full details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it states to 'Use bills_get_bill with the bill ID for full detail' after getting summaries from this search. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool and gives a specific workflow for obtaining detailed information.

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