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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or side effects. It only describes the domain, leaving the agent without critical behavioral information.

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, concise sentence that efficiently captures the domain. It is front-loaded with the 'revolving door' concept and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must stand alone to guide invocation. It offers only a thematic overview and lacks operational details such as parameter behavior, result expectations, or constraints, making it insufficient for reliable tool usage.

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?

The schema has two parameters (person, organisation) with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions 'former ministers/senior officials' and 'private-sector roles,' which indirectly hints at the parameters, but it does not explicitly define how person and organisation are used or interpreted in search.

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 title 'Search ACOBA appointments' clearly states the verb and resource, and the description explains the specific subject matter: 'former ministers/senior officials taking private-sector roles and the conditions ACOBA imposed.' This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_lobbying and search_contracts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of target queries, and no explicit comparison to sibling tools. It only offers thematic context, so usage guidance is effectively absent.

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