search_dapa_legal_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the search description is fully consistent with those. The description adds only the source/scope (official DAPA catalog of laws and admin rules) but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as result pagination or data freshness.

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 entire description is one short sentence with no filler, and the key verb and resource appear immediately. It is efficiently front-loaded and has no redundant content.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and several closely related sibling tools, this description is too thin. It fails to clarify parameter semantics, return shape, or how to choose among the sibling search tools, leaving important call decisions underspecified.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter semantics. Parameters like query, kind, limit, and especially category are left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of field documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('searches') and a concrete resource: the DAPA official website catalog of laws and administrative rules. It is clear and tied to the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools such as search_legal or search_legal_content.

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 usage guidance is given. The description never states when to choose this catalog search over sibling tools, nor does it name any conditions or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer selection criteria from names alone.

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