search_planning_applications

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

Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. No mention of pagination, rate limits, read-only nature, or response format. With no annotations, the burden falls on description, which is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys primary purpose. Could be slightly expanded without bloat, but overall appropriate length.

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?

Provides source and optional filter, but lacks details on pagination parameters (limit/offset), default dataset, and return value structure. Output schema exists, reducing the need for return value explanation, but parameter details are still missing.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only adds context for 'reference' as optional filter, leaving limit, offset, and dataset unexplained. Insufficient compensation for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('planning applications'), the geographic scope ('England'), the data source ('planning.data.gov.uk'), and an optional filter ('reference'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which target different data types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_constituencies or search_flood_areas. Lacks any when-not or context for optimal use.

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