search_procedures

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current' (implying active/valid status) and 'authorized site scope' (implying access control), but it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe pagination, sorting, or what happens when no results are found. This is minimal for a search 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which helps with return format), the description lacks essential context: it doesn't explain the optional parameters, filtering semantics, or usage scenarios. For a search tool with 4 optional params and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly and effectively.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the four parameters (limit, query, category, site_ids). Since the schema only gives types and defaults, the description must compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct effective queries.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'HSE procedures', and the scope constraint 'in the caller's authorized site scope'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_hse_knowledge (knowledge base) and search_incidents (incidents) by resource type, and from get_procedure (likely single retrieval) by the search action.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. While the search vs. get distinction is implied by the name, the description does not mention get_procedure for specific retrievals or search_hse_knowledge for knowledge queries. The 'authorized site scope' hints at a constraint but doesn't route the agent.

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