ie_comp_search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. The words 'search' and 'returns' clearly imply a non-destructive read operation, and the return fields are disclosed. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a search tool, the safety profile is adequately conveyed.

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 exactly two sentences, with the first stating the primary purpose and scope, and the second listing the return fields. It is front-loaded, precise, and contains no redundant words.

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?

The description omits that the tool supports additional filters (type, sector, outcome, limit) and introduces a potential ambiguity: the schema includes 'merger' as a type, while the description lists only enforcement categories, suggesting mergers are out of scope. This mismatch should be explicitly clarified to avoid incorrect 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 input schema provides 100% descriptive coverage for all five parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain them. The tool description reinforces the type enum by listing examples in the text, but it adds no unique parameter-level detail beyond the 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?

The description clearly states a specific action (full-text search) on a well-defined resource (CCPC enforcement decisions), lists the covered categories (abuse of dominance, cartel, sector inquiries), and distinguishes from sibling merger search tools by explicitly limiting scope to enforcement decisions.

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 clear context for the tool's domain (enforcement decisions) and indirectly differentiates it from the sibling merger search tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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