Search CPV codes by keyword

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 effectively describes the return format ('Returns code, name, division, and historical tender count') and implies a read-only lookup operation, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return values, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return format, though it could benefit from mentioning any error conditions or the format of the historical tender count.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the Polish keyword requirement and the purpose of finding CPV filters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Look up CPV codes'), resource ('CPV codes'), and scope ('by Polish keyword'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_tenders by focusing on code lookup rather than tender search. It explicitly mentions the EU procurement category context.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this before search_tenders to find the right CPV filter') and distinguishes it from the sibling search_tenders tool, offering clear context for its application in a workflow.

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