search_cpv_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action but does not mention result format, pagination, limits, or read-only nature. The agent has no indication of what the response looks like or any potential side effects, making this a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and method. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no unnecessary words or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by providing more context about expected results and usage constraints. It does not mention what the search returns, whether it supports partial matches, or how it relates to browsing tools. For a tool with minimal metadata, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters, including descriptions for 'query' (keyword or code prefix) and 'lang' (search language). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action (search) and the resource (CPV codes) along with the search method (by keyword or partial code number). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_bkp_codes, search_npk_codes, and search_oag_codes, which target different code systems. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 CPV code searches but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as browse_cpv_tree for hierarchical navigation or other code search tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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