ee_dp_search_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the description states the resource scope. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal for a simple search tool.

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 immediately states the action and resource. It contains no fluff and every word earns its place.

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, the description does not hint at what the results look like (e.g., list of documents, metadata). The schema fully documents parameters, and the description gives overall context, but for a tool with no output schema, a bit more detail about the result shape or limit behavior would make it more complete. It is minimally viable but lacks that extra context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the document categories (recommendations, guidelines, FAQs) which map to the 'type' enum, and by providing geographic/policy context (Estonia GDPR) that helps interpret query examples. This goes slightly beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('AKI guidance documents'), and further clarifies the document types ('recommendations, guidelines, and FAQs'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ee_dp_search_decisions and ee_dp_get_guideline.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool (searching guidance documents on GDPR in Estonia) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. However, the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over the decision-search sibling.

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