blv_search_pesticide_products

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already convey key behavioral traits. Description adds context about searching a register but does not introduce new behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. Purpose and use case are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete and sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and specific resource 'Swiss approved pesticide register', and provides a concrete use case. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools which focus on animal health, food control, etc.

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 use case is clearly stated, and the tool's role is obvious given sibling diversity. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, which is a minor gap.

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