look_up_cpv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the main transformation and discloses the empty-query behavior: 'Also returns all divisions if query is empty.' It does not describe output format or error cases, but for a simple lookup tool this is reasonably 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?

Three concise sentences: the core purpose, the user scenarios, and the edge-case behavior. No wasted words or redundant schemas. The most important information (input-to-output translation) is placed first.

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 simplicity (one required string parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what input to provide and what to do with an empty input. It does not specify return-value details, but for a code-lookup tool this is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the only parameter 'query'. It does: query is a good/service description line, and an empty string triggers a special 'return all divisions' behavior. This adds meaningful semantics entirely absent from 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Translate a good/service description into EU CPV division codes.' This clearly states the input, the transformation, and the output type. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like look_up_notice_type by focusing on CPV divisions rather than other classifications.

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 explains when it is useful: 'cross-border bidders to classify a tender or pick the right alert keywords.' This gives clear usage context. It does cite alternatives or say when not to use it, but there is no need, since the use case is well articulated.

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