rti_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose matching behavior (fragment matching, two date formats), but it omits important operational details such as what the `refresh` parameter does, whether results are cached, any rate/limit behavior, or side effects. The description is partially transparent but insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, dense with useful information, no filler. The first sentence defines the scope and search keys; the second gives practical usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers query semantics and usage context well. However, it omits the meaning of `refresh` and `limit`, and there are no annotations to explain safety or side effects. For an agent to make full use of the tool, more context is needed, so this is below the minimum viable threshold.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains what can go in `query` (registration number fragment, public-authority code, status text, dates), but it says nothing about `limit` or `refresh` parameters. This is a clear gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action: 'Search every RTI request and appeal by registration number fragment, public-authority code, status text, filing date or status date.' It names the resource (RTI requests/appeals) and specifies the search dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely perform specific lookups or list operations.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user names an application loosely (e.g. 'the BSNL one', 'NIMHANS') or asks what moved on a given day.' This gives clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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