search_cpv_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the tool's role in the overall search pipeline but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like matched/unmatched behavior, result ordering, or rate limits. It is adequate, but not rich beyond 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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear use_case tag, followed by a one-sentence summary, and then context about CPV and integration. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage. No redundant or fluff content.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and integration with `search_procurements`. It does not explain the return format, but an output schema is present. It also doesn't address edge cases like no matches, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations/schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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% – the tool description does not explain any parameters. Although the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for `query`, `limit`, and `language`, the instruction states that with low coverage the description must compensate. It only gives a single example keyword ('Metall') but does not explain the other parameters or their constraints, so it fails to add meaningful 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's function: 'Search CPV classification codes by keyword.' It also specifies that it translates a keyword into CPV codes for filtering `search_procurements`, which differentiates it from sibling tools like `search_construction_codes`. The verb 'search' + resource 'CPV classification codes' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'Call this first when the user names a subject rather than a code.' It also explains the workflow: resolve keyword to code, then pass to `search_procurements(cpv_codes=[...])`. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes it from the procurement search tools.

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