hr_comp_search_mergers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists returned fields. It omits behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, ordering, error handling, or authorization needs, leaving the agent to infer these from parameters.

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, focused sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value.

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 simple parameters (4, all documented) and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and returns but lacks behavioral context like pagination or result ordering.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 AZTN merger control decisions and specifies the returned fields (acquiring party, target, sector, clearance outcome). It distinguishes from siblings like hr_comp_search_decisions (broader) and hr_comp_get_merger (specific retrieval).

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 implies usage for searching mergers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hr_comp_search_decisions or hr_comp_get_merger. No when-not or context exclusions are provided.

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