pt_comp_search_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (case number, parties, outcome, fine amount, Lei da Concorrencia articles) and clearly indicates a search (read) operation, but does not address pagination, rate limits, or data coverage boundaries.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for return content. It is front-loaded, specific, and contains no redundant 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?

The description covers the core function and return fields, which is sufficient given the schema handles parameter documentation. It could be more explicit about limitations (e.g., not covering mergers) but overall is complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with all five parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 performs full-text search across AdC enforcement decisions, with specific examples of decision types (abuse of dominance, cartel, sector inquiries). This distinguishes it from sibling tool pt_comp_search_mergers, which focuses on mergers.

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 for searching enforcement decisions but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of pt_comp_search_mergers or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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