Resolve A Hansard Column Citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the workflow (resolution then reading contributions) and does not contradict annotations. It does not detail rate limits or error cases but is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences: the first concisely states when to use with an example, the second gives precise follow-up instructions. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 1 parameter (nested object with 3 fields), high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input scenario and the next steps. The agent can correctly select and use the tool without ambiguity.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing detailed descriptions for each parameter (column_number with suffix example, volume_number required, house default). The description adds a concrete example and clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is upgraded to 4.

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 explicitly states the tool resolves OSCOLA-style Hansard citations to find the corresponding debate, with a clear example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parliament_get_debate_contributions by clarifying it is the first step.

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 starts with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and specifies the exact citation format required. It also tells the agent what to do after calling the tool, naming alternative tools (read_resource and parliament_get_debate_contributions) and the correct URI format.

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