List Legislation

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns statutes or regulations, providing basic output context. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, but for a simple listing with annotations, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant words and efficiently conveys the core 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?

For a simple listing tool with two parameters, a clear description, and a readOnlyHint, the provided context is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is not critical since the name and description indicate a list return. The workflow dependency on list_legislation_databases is captured in the schema description, helping completeness.

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%, so both language and databaseId are already well-documented. The description's phrase 'from a specific legislation database' aligns with the databaseId parameter but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the action (list) and the resource (statutes or regulations from a specific legislation database), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_legislation_databases (which lists databases) and get_legislation (which retrieves a single item). The phrase 'specific legislation database' signals the required databaseId.

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 implied by the required databaseId and the schema's reference to list_legislation_databases as the source of IDs. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_legislation, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is present but only implicitly via schema.

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