cfpb_search_complaints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a non-destructive operation. The description adds value by disclosing fuzzy search behavior for company names (auto-retry on exact match failure) and listing specific product values. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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 concise, front-loading the primary purpose and key capabilities. Each sentence adds value (record count, search fields, auto-retry, product list). No extraneous information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 search tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key searchable fields, and a notable behavior (fuzzy search). It does not detail pagination, error handling, or default behavior for size, but the schema covers these. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand tool capabilities.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'Wells Fargo' for company, product list) and clarifying fuzzy search logic for company. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 tool searches the CFPB consumer complaint database and specifies searchable fields (company, product, state, etc.). It mentions the record count and return type (individual complaints). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cfpb_complaint_aggregations or cfpb_complaint_detail, which focus on aggregations or specific details.

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 provides implicit guidance on usage (search by various criteria) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or reference to related tools like cfpb_complaint_detail for single-complaint lookup or cfpb_complaint_aggregations for summary stats.

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