search_authorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses 'no auth, no side effects,' which is critical behavioral information. It also reveals the API-only-id caveat for jurisdiction. It could go further by describing the response shape, but the safety and side-effect profile is transparent.

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?

Every sentence is purposeful: the opening states the action, the GREEN tag summarizes safety in one token, and each parameter gets a compact line with no redundancy. The most important operational detail is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter read-only search, the description covers the service, auth, side effects, and each parameter, including the jurisdiction id conversion caveat. It does not explicitly state the return shape, which would be more important here because no output schema exists, but the gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only names, types, and defaults, so the description must add meaning. It fully compensates: query gets a free-text explanation with examples, jurisdiction gets accepted formats and the API-only-id constraint, and limit gets its maximum-result meaning plus the server page-size hint. This gives an agent everything needed to construct arguments correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search public bodies on fragdenstaat.de.' This clearly identifies it as a discovery/list-search tool and distinguishes it from siblings like get_authority, which implies direct retrieval. The scope is 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 description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to find public bodies by free-text, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_authority for known IDs. The GREEN safety note adds operational context but not routing guidance.

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