Search EDPB documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'through its public website', implying an external web call, which is mild context. It does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or any observable behavior beyond the safety profile.

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 one sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple filters; conciseness turns into lack of substance. It earns its place but fails to cover essential details.

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 complex search tool with 6 parameters, 2 enums, and a 0% schema description coverage, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention available filters, expected output, or how results are structured (despite an output schema existing). An agent cannot call this tool correctly without further inspection.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides no information about the meaning of query, limit, status, document_type, date_from, or date_to. The agent must guess how to construct filters and which enums are appropriate. This is completely inadequate.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('official EDPB document catalogue') and specifies it goes through the public website. It is easy to distinguish from similar siblings like search_edps_documents (different agency) and search_eu_law (broader EU law), so the agent can tell them apart.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose it over search_edps_documents or get_edpb_document, nor does it note any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the resource it searches.

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