search_proc_offices

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 that it searches, but does not mention return format, pagination, filtering behavior, case sensitivity, or any other operational detail. This is minimal disclosure for a search tool.

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?

A single, short sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Zero wasted words, and the description is immediately readable.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention what a successful search returns, whether results are limited, or any pagination. Given the absence of annotations, more detail on expected output would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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% — both parameters have descriptions ('Name to search' and 'Filter by parent institution'). The tool description paraphrases these as 'by name or institution', adding no new semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('public procurement offices'), and the search dimensions ('by name or institution'). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like search_tenders or search_cpv_codes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other search tools. While the resource is unique, the description does not state any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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