search_construction_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the use-case context but does not elaborate on behavioral details like return format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 structured and mostly concise, with a use_case tag, a one-sentence summary, an Args list, and a brief context paragraph. Each section adds relevant context, though the final paragraph could be tightened without losing value.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations that cover safety, so the description adequately explains the purpose and domain. It does not discuss optional parameters like limit and language, but the schema fills that gap, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (system, query, limit, language), including enum values. The tool description redundantly lists system enum values and describes query as 'Keyword,' but omits limit and language, adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 translates a keyword into Swiss construction cost codes (BKP, NPK, eBKP, OAG, CPC). It uses specific verbs like 'search' and 'translate' with a well-defined resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cpv_codes by the Swiss classification context.

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?

It provides strong context that this is for Swiss construction cost standards used in building tenders, relevant for school-building procurement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity compared to similar sibling tools.

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