Get Legislation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-field details ('including title, citation, dates, and repeal status') which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any potential behavioral quirks like error handling, response format, or language-specific variations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose, omits any fluff, and includes the most relevant details about the returned metadata. It is optimally concise for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return content (title, citation, dates, repeal status). It covers the essential purpose and fields, though it could benefit from a note about using it after list_legislation, which is already hinted in the schema. The absence of an output schema makes the field enumeration valuable.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (language, databaseId, legislationId) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: 'Get metadata for a specific piece of legislation' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('legislation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_legislation' which lists multiple items. It also enumerates the key fields returned (title, citation, dates, repeal status).

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?

Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'specific piece of legislation' and the legislationId schema description referencing 'list_legislation'. There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus list_legislation or get_case, nor any exclusions. The example in the schema helps but the description itself lacks clear guidance.

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