hr_comp_search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns matching decisions with specified fields, implying a non-destructive search operation. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, authorization needs, or rate limits, making it adequate but not fully transparent.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, scope, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundant 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, legal context, covered case types, and return fields adequately. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or rate limits but is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing domain context (Croatian competition law, AZTN) and specifying the return fields (case number, parties, etc.), which complements the parameter-level descriptions. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 performs full-text search across competition enforcement decisions, specifies covered areas (abuse of dominance, cartel, sector inquiries) under Croatian law, and lists returned fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like hr_comp_search_mergers which target mergers.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., hr_comp_get_decision for a specific decision) or when not to use it. The context is implied through scope but no when/when-not statements.

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