cpsc_penalty_search

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by emphasizing that penalty_type is mandatory and providing a concrete example of use. The mention of using cpsc_penalty_companies implies that company name inputs must be valid, which is a useful behavioral detail not present in the schema or annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a requirement, a cross-reference to a companion tool, and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the searchable fields, required parameter, and companion tool. It omits details like pagination or response format, but these are not demanded by the context signals and the description remains practical for invocation.

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?

While the schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, the description reinforces the requirement for penalty_type and gives a clear example ('penalty_type='civil', company='IKEA''). This adds practical meaning to the parameter values, especially for users unfamiliar with the domain.

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 'Search CPSC penalty records by type, company, product, fiscal year, or ID', which combines a specific verb with the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cpsc_recall_search and cpsc_penalty_companies by focusing on penalties and listing distinct search dimensions.

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?

It explicitly states that penalty_type is required, which is a critical usage constraint. It also directs users to cpsc_penalty_companies for discovering valid company names, providing a concrete alternative for one of the parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with cpsc_recall_search, but the naming convention makes the intended domain clear.

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