ro_dp_search_decisions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only search and specifies what is returned: reference, entity name, fine amount, and GDPR articles cited. It does not mention pagination, result limits beyond the schema's default, or query matching nuances, but these are less critical for a search operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return content. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description adequately compensates by naming the key fields of matching decisions. With four parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context, though explicit mention of the 'opinion' type and pagination could improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents all parameters including examples for query and defaults for limit. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, but this is acceptable because the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific operation, 'Full-text search,' and a specific resource, 'ANSPDCP decisions,' with concrete examples of included content. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like ro_dp_search_guidelines by narrowing scope to 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 clearly implies this tool is for free-text searching across decisions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over ro_dp_get_decision or ro_dp_search_guidelines. There is no 'when not to use' guidance or named alternative.

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