ie_comp_search_mergers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool 'returns merger cases' with specific fields, giving some behavioral insight. However, it omits details such as whether the search is read-only, how results are ordered, or any pagination or authorization requirements. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 states the tool's purpose and key output fields. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

For a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear summary of return fields while the schema covers parameter details. It does not elaborate on interaction between filters (e.g., whether sector and outcome are combined), but the core usage is clear. This is reasonably complete.

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%, meaning each parameter (query, limit, sector, outcome) is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description carries no extra semantic burden, netting a baseline '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's function: 'Search CCPC merger control decisions (Fusionskontrolle).' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('merger control decisions'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ie_comp_search_decisions by focusing specifically on merger cases. The return fields ('acquiring party, target, sector, and outcome') further clarify scope.

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 the tool is for merger-specific searches, contrasting with more general decision search tools. It provides clear context (CCPC merger control) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since the sibling list suggests ie_comp_search_decisions for general decisions, the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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