si_comp_search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the search functionality and return fields, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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: first states the core functionality and scope, second lists return fields. No redundant information, efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks behavioral info (read-only, idempotency), default limits, pagination, and error handling. Somewhat incomplete but covers essential purpose.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, only mentioning return fields that are not directly about parameter usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameters well.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: full-text search across AVK enforcement decisions. It explicitly mentions the scope (abuse of dominance, cartel, sector inquiries) and return fields (case number, parties, outcome, fine amount, ZPOmK articles), distinguishing it from sibling tools like si_comp_search_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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives like si_comp_get_decision for retrieving a single decision or si_comp_search_mergers for mergers. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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