clasate_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the return format (including specific fields and pagination), the filtering behavior (clasificare, obiect3d), and the licensing (CC BY-SA 4.0). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a read-only search tool this is a minor gap. The description goes well beyond a minimal statement and provides substantial behavioral context.

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 organized into clear sections: purpose, parameter explanations, and return format. It is relatively long but each sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the parameter list is formatted for easy scanning. It could be slightly more concise, but the level of detail justifies the length.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, all parameters, the exact output structure, and even points to the related detail tool. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret results. The only minor omissions (e.g., error cases) are not critical for a straightforward search operation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: query with examples, clasificare with enumerations ('tez'/'fond') and default behavior, obiect3d with its meaning, and page with its base and size. This is exemplary parameter documentation that adds meaning well beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Romania's official registry of classified cultural goods'). It differentiates from sibling search tools like amccrs_search_buildings and data_europa_search_romania by naming the exact registry, and from clasate_item_detail by indicating it returns summary items for further detail. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 hints at usage by stating that results contain enough information to call clasate_item_detail() for full records, implicitly guiding when to use the detail tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this search over other search siblings (e.g., amccrs_search_buildings) or provide any 'use this instead of X' guidance. There is no exclusion or comparison with alternative tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the resource name.

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