lv_dp_search_guidelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about document types, but it does not disclose results format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but it lacks rich behavioral detail beyond the immediate purpose.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action verb 'Search' and immediately specifies the resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential context (what is being searched and the domain). However, it does not mention that results are likely a list or that a companion tool lv_dp_get_guideline exists for retrieving details. Still, for a straightforward search tool, it 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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, though it does reinforce the meaning of 'type' by listing document categories like recommendations and FAQs. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 purpose: 'Search DVI guidance documents' with a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the content type ('recommendations, guidelines, and FAQs') and jurisdiction ('GDPR implementation in Latvia'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lv_dp_search_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 implies usage when the user needs guidance documents, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like lv_dp_get_guideline or lv_dp_search_decisions. There is no clear exclusion or alternative naming, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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