bopa_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination/limit behavior, date-range semantics, or result ranking — 'search' implies read access but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but at this length it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is far too thin for a four-parameter search tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent unable to call the tool correctly. Date-range filters and the text query's role are entirely unspecified.

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 four parameters (text, limit, date_from, date_to), so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions the required text query, the limit default, or the date-range filter format, leaving every parameter undocumented in both structured and prose form.

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 ('Search') and resource ('official bulletin documents'), so an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like bopa_document, govern_search, or search_catalog, which could plausibly cover similar ground.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (e.g., bopa_document for a single bulletin entry, govern_search for other official content). The agent must infer scope from the tool name alone.

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