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 text is capped at 3000 chars per contribution and describes the return format (contributions with date, party, debate title, text). Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description appropriately supplements with operational details without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the action and resource, second details the return format and constraints, third provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 context signals), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return format, constraints, and usage context without needing to explain parameters or safety aspects already handled by 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 fully documents all parameters, including their purposes, formats, and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra 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 tool searches Hansard for parliamentary debates, questions, and speeches, specifying the exact resource (Hansard debates) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on parliamentary debates rather than bills, legislation, or other parliamentary functions, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for understanding legislative intent or political context'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose legislation_search instead for statutory text rather than debates.

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