ch_dp_search_decisions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It mentions full-text search and German query requirement but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The slight inconsistency between mentioned document types and schema enum is noted.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, document scope, and return content. No unnecessary words, and key information is 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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully specifies return fields (reference, entity, DSG articles). The schema covers filtering by type and topic, so the agent has sufficient context for invocation. Minor inconsistency in document types mentioned does not severely impact 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond confirming the German language requirement for the query. The mention of return fields is about output, not parameters.

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 'Full-text search across FDPIC decisions and opinions', specifies the document types, and lists return fields (reference, entity name, DSG articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ch_dp_search_guidelines (guidelines) and ch_dp_get_decision (single decision retrieval).

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 use for searching decisions/opinions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like ch_dp_search_guidelines or ch_dp_get_decision. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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