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 annotations: it specifies that results are 'ranked' and lists the returned fields (title, type, year, number, URL). While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description enhances understanding of result format and ranking behavior, though it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes the return format, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), comprehensive input schema with 100% coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, return format, and workflow guidance without needing to duplicate structured data.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without additional semantic value.

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 specific action ('Search UK legislation on legislation.gov.uk') and resource ('UK legislation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bills_search_bills' or 'case_law_search' by focusing on legislation rather than bills or case law. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with domain specificity.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Use legislation_get_toc to explore structure, then legislation_get_section for provisions,' offering clear alternatives and workflow context. This tells the agent when to use this tool (initial search) versus when to use sibling tools for subsequent exploration.

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