search_gdpr_decisions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool performs semantic search and returns decisions with summaries, fines, etc. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (api_key param), rate limits, or that it is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral details beyond the basic function.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds unique value: semantic search, sources listed, return contents, and usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured, though could be slightly more concise.

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 the complexity of a semantic search tool across multiple jurisdictions, the description covers key aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and a usage hint. No output schema, but return types are summarized. Missing pagination details beyond limit param, but overall sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds example queries for the 'query' parameter and explains jurisdiction and limit values, but these largely mirror schema descriptions. No significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it performs semantic search on EU GDPR case law, listing sources (DPAs, CJEU, EDPB) and explicitly says 'Use this to find case law supporting legal advice.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_decision_detail (for single decision details) and search_by_gdpr_article (specific article search).

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?

Description provides a general use case ('find case law supporting legal advice') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like search_by_gdpr_article for article-specific searches. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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