pl_dp_search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns matching decisions with reference, entity name, fine amount, and GDPR articles cited, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention any limitations (e.g., result sorting, pagination beyond the limit parameter), or disclose any other behavioral quirks. The description provides some transparency but not comprehensive detail.

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, information-dense sentence. It states the core purpose first, then lists the return fields. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and return fields but does not explain how this tool relates to siblings (e.g., when to use get_decision vs this search), nor does it mention any nuances like pagination or the meaning of type vs topic. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks guidance on tool selection and edge cases, leaving some gaps for a complete contextual picture.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that returns include fine amount and GDPR articles, which implies relevance of the query and topic parameters, but it does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. It offers minimal extra semantic value over the 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 clearly states a specific action (full-text search) and a specific resource (UODO decisions), listing the decision subtypes (sanctions, administrative decisions, orders). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_dp_search_guidelines and pl_dp_get_decision by focusing on searching decisions rather than guidelines or retrieving a single decision.

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: use this tool to search across decisions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as pl_dp_search_guidelines or pl_dp_get_decision, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions and alternative recommendations are absent.

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