search_acts

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: date filters the event date, records stay separate, number_found counts API person hits, and next_start drives pagination. These are non-obvious behavioral traits, not restatements of the 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?

Terse, front-loaded, no filler sentences. The clipped, note-like phrasing (semicolons, fragments) is efficient but slightly telegraphic, costing a point on readability.

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 7-parameter search tool with 0% schema documentation, the description covers only date and pagination. It omits how name/place/year/record_type interact, whether date and year can combine, and what limit bounds mean. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return shape but not the parameter gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. Only 'date' gets semantics ('filters the event date'); place, year, record_type, limit, start, and the required name are left entirely to bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+corpus: 'Search Gelders Archief acts in Open Archieven'. It implicitly separates itself from retrieval siblings (download_act, get_record) by noting records are returned separately and record_id feeds follow-up calls, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Gives downstream usage ('Use record_id for subsequent calls', 'next_start enables pagination') but no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no exclusions. The agent must infer that get_record/download_act are the follow-on tools.

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