si_comp_search_mergers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions return fields. It does not disclose behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every word provides value, with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it returns. However, it could mention pagination behavior or result limits, which are implied by the 'limit' parameter but not explained. Overall it is mostly 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?

All 4 parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only lists some return fields. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already conveys parameter semantics.

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 this tool searches AVK merger control decisions and specifies the return fields (acquiring party, target, sector, outcome). It is distinct from sibling tools like si_comp_search_decisions, which likely covers broader 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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over si_comp_search_decisions or other siblings. The description does not mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives.

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