search_oag_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 describes the action as a search but does not mention return format, pagination, or any limitations. For a search tool this is minimal but acceptable; however, it adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It immediately identifies the verb, resource, and input type. This is exemplary conciseness for a search tool.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter search with no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the core function, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it does not explicitly clarify the distinction from browse_oag_tree or what the result set contains, which could be helpful given the many sibling tools. Still, it is largely complete for the basic call.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'lang' parameters having descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, essentially restating that it searches by keyword or number. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('OAG (object type classification) codes'), and the input type ('keyword or number'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_cpv_codes, search_bkp_codes, and search_npk_codes by naming OAG explicitly. The acronym is expanded for clarity.

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 OAG codes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browse_oag_tree or other code search tools. It provides no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection based solely on the OAG reference. This is adequate but not explicit.

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