search_dapa_policy

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that the content is public and synchronized from specific menus, but it does not disclose pagination, ranking, or synchronization 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 description is a single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only search with one required parameter, this is minimally viable: an agent can invoke it with just a query. However, the optional section parameter is unexplained, there is no output schema, and the definition does not differentiate it among 15 sibling tools.

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 does not explain query syntax, the meaning of limit, or valid section values. The mention of 'menu and sub-tabs' hints at the section parameter's conceptual scope, but it does not actually map to the parameter.

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: it searches public body text synchronized from the DAPA work/policy menu and its sub-tabs. This makes the tool's scope reasonably distinct from legal-search and general-info siblings, though it does not 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and the phrase 'searches', leaving ambiguity against close siblings like search_dapa_info and search_legal_content.

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