tramits_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, describe matching behavior (full-text vs keyword), ranking, pagination behavior implied by 'limit', or any auth/rate constraints. The output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but the search semantics remain opaque.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is efficient. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by tight editing of substantive content, so it is concise without being informative.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description should at least clarify the searched corpus and what the required 'text' parameter expects. Instead it provides neither usage context nor parameter meaning, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly against its many search siblings.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds nothing about them. What 'text' should contain (free text, procedure code, exact phrase?) and what 'limit' bounds is left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 gives a verb ('Search') and a resource ('e-tramits procedures'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, 'e-tramits' is unexplained domain jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from the many other search siblings (bopa_search, stats_search, govern_search, search_catalog). An agent cannot tell which corpus this covers without external knowledge.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling searches, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name 'tramits' and its vague relationship to the sibling 'tramit'.

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