search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic fallback to the AllStats Search Engine when no results are found, which is a useful behavioral trait. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a non-mutating search tool, the fallback is the key behavior. Slight deduction for missing return format 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?

The description is front-loaded with a concise summary, followed by well-organized bullet points. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan and digest quickly.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool searches, when to use it, when to avoid it, and a fallback behavior. It lacks an explicit statement of return format, but for a search tool this is often implicit. The usage guidelines and fallback disclosure make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by mapping content types (static tables, publications, press releases, indicators) to the 'type' parameter's allowed values, but it does not explain each parameter beyond the schema. This is acceptable given the schema already documents all parameters.

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 opens with 'Cross-type search across BPS content (static tables, publications, press releases, indicators)', which clearly specifies the verb (search), resource (BPS content types), and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting when not to use (find_data, get_dynamic_data), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide concrete scenarios and name alternatives (find_data, get_dynamic_data). This gives the agent clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over siblings.

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