gus_search_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates the tool searches by name fragment (query param) and returns results (page_size), but does not clarify behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, sorting, or error handling (e.g., what if no results?). It does not mention authentication needs or rate limits. Acceptable for a search tool but could be more transparent.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides usage context with examples. No extraneous information. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 a simple search interface with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case. It does not explain the output schema or return format, but since an output schema exists, that is not required. It could mention the language (Polish) of the database and results, but overall sufficient for a straightforward search.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters ('query' as name fragment, 'page_size' as number of results). The description confirms that query is a fragment of the variable name and page_size controls result count, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool action: 'Search for a statistical variable in GUS BDL by name fragment.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (statistical variable in GUS BDL), and scope (by name fragment). It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning its use when a desired indicator is not available in dedicated tools (e.g. specific indicators like CO2 emissions, number of doctors, tourism), which are not covered by siblings like gus_get_population or gus_get_average_salary.

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?

Description provides explicit use case: 'Use when you need an indicator not available in dedicated tools' and gives examples of queries. This implies when not to use it (when dedicated tools exist), but does not explicitly state alternative tools or when to use siblings. The context is clear for distinguishing from specialized tools, but lacks direct references to sibling methods.

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