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 discloses the 3000-character cap on text fields and implies pagination behavior through the offset/limit parameters. While annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description provides implementation details that help the agent understand result limitations.

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 with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose with optional filtering, the second provides crucial prerequisite and limitation information. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers prerequisites, limitations, and distinguishes from relevant siblings, 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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal additional semantic context - it mentions topic filtering but doesn't provide details beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Hansard contributions by a specific member'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for member-specific contributions rather than general Hansard searches (parliament_search_hansard) or other member data (parliament_member_interests).

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 states when to use this tool ('Use parliament_find_member first to obtain the integer member ID') and provides clear context about the required prerequisite. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool parliament_find_member by explaining the dependency relationship.

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