gr_comp_search_decisions

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns matches with listed fields. No mention of read-only nature, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with no results. Minimal transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states action and scope, second lists return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Covers purpose and return fields but lacks details on parameter usage, pagination, response format, and error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, baseline 3. Description adds value by summarizing return fields (case number, parties, outcome, fine amount, articles) and noting 'Published primarily in English', which reinforces query language. Provides useful context beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'HCC enforcement decisions' with examples of decision types. However, does not distinguish from sibling 'gr_comp_search_mergers' which covers similar search for merger decisions. Minor inconsistency: schema includes 'merger' type but description omits it from listed types.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'gr_comp_search_mergers' for mergers or 'gr_comp_get_decision' for retrieving a specific decision. Does not mention prerequisites or context.

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