search_proclamations

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 adds domain context about what proclamations are but does not reveal search behavior such as pagination defaults, full-text vs metadata matching, result ordering, or any limitations. The schema reveals page/per_page parameters, but the description remains silent on their effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a brief clarifying example of what proclamations cover. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filter dimensions. However, it omits any mention of result format, pagination behavior, or whether parameters can be combined, which leaves room for ambiguity in a tool that otherwise relies entirely on this free-text description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the primary filters ('by president, year, or keyword') which adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not enrich the meaning of page or per_page, but the schema already documents those adequately.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'presidential proclamations', then lists the three primary filters (president, year, keyword). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_executive_orders and search_presidential_memoranda by focusing specifically on proclamations.

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 implies usage when the user needs proclamations and even gives example use cases (holidays, awareness months, trade actions). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion guidance implied rather than stated.

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