se_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it performs a 'full-text search' and returns specific fields, which implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or the effect of missing parameters. The description adds moderate transparency but misses key details.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and listing key return fields. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without redundancy. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability, but current form is adequate.

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 no output schema, the description briefly mentions return fields but does not explain the result structure, error handling, or default behaviors (e.g., limit default of 20 is only in schema). For a search tool, it is moderately complete but lacks details on pagination and filtering of empty queries.

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 about the query language (Swedish) and mentions returned fields, but does not provide additional semantics for the 'type' or 'topic' parameters beyond the schema. The added value is marginal.

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 explicitly states 'Full-text search across IMY decisions' and lists the returned fields (reference, entity name, fine amount, GDPR articles). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like se_dp_get_decision (single decision retrieval) and se_dp_search_guidelines (different resource).

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 indicates use for searching decisions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like se_dp_get_decision or se_dp_search_guidelines. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned. The context with sibling tool names implies differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage instructions.

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