search_propositions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior beyond the basic action, but it only rephrases the tool's function. It omits cursor-based pagination, how semantic similarity is computed or triggered, whether filters combine with AND/OR, and any read-only guarantee, leaving the agent guessing about execution details.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently establishes the tool's purpose. It contains no wasted words, but the brevity is partly responsible for the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this description is far too sparse; it doesn't clarify expected value formats (year, house, state), pagination via cursor/limit, or whether semantic similarity requires a non-empty query. An agent cannot reliably select and invoke parameters from this text, even though an output schema exists.

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 had to explain the nine parameters, but it never maps 'identifiers', 'text', or 'filters' to specific fields such as query, year, house, state, author, municipality, proposition_type, cursor, or limit. This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance for constructing a valid search request.

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 states a clear action ('Search propositions') and names four search modes: identifiers, text, semantic similarity, and filters. It distinguishes from siblings like get_proposition and read_proposition_text, though it doesn't detail which identifiers or filter fields are supported.

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 sentences address when to use this tool instead of siblings; it never references get_proposition, find_related_propositions, or read_proposition_text, nor any conditions or exclusions. The verb 'Search' implies a discovery use case, but that is left entirely to inference.

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