Search EDPS documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (CELLAR) and the coverage limitation, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or other traits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, and the scoping constraint follows immediately. There is no redundant information or padding.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete for a search tool with five parameters. It does not explain query syntax, date formatting, or the meaning of 'document_type'. An agent seeking to call this tool correctly would need to infer parameter usage from names alone, which is not sufficient for a complex, parameterized 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (query, limit, date_to, date_from, document_type) or their intended semantics. While property names like 'query' and 'limit' are self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema, and the schema itself lacks descriptions for fields like 'document_type' and the date range semantics. This is a significant gap.

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 specific verb ('search'), a precise resource ('official Publications Office CELLAR metadata'), and a clear scope ('EDPS publications'). This distinguishes it from the closely related sibling 'search_edpb_documents' by naming a different entity (EDPS vs. EDPB), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives a usage condition — coverage is limited to EDPS material deposited in CELLAR — which implies when to use it (when EDPS publications are needed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference required.

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