bpstat_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the two-stage behavior (domain selection then in-domain series search), that every domain is returned so the caller can retry, and a concrete latency/caching profile ('a few seconds to a minute... cached for a week'). It omits error behavior and what the search does when no domain matches, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then examples, then behavior, then a short Args block — a sensible order with little waste. The trailing 'Args: lang: ...' fragment leaks docstring formatting rather than prose, which slightly hurts structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the search strategy, the domain fallback path, and caching/latency — enough to call the tool confidently. The only real gap is limit, whose effect on results is never described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lang ('PT' or 'EN', with the useful note that PT labels are richer) and domain_id (a filter, and the retry handle), but the required query parameter is only illustrated via examples and the limit parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Banco de Portugal statistical series by keyword') and immediately scopes it with six concrete example queries covering different statistical topics. An agent can distinguish this from bpstat_series (which presumably fetches a known series) without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: pass a keyword query, optionally constrain with domain_id, and retry with a specific domain_id after reading the returned domain list. The example queries model the expected input style well. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over the sibling bpstat_series, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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