search_authorities

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld nature. Description adds search-specific behavior (case-insensitive, substring match, limit). No contradictions. Would benefit from mentioning result ordering or empty result handling, but adequate.

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?

Description is concise (three lines plus example), front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then example. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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?

For a simple search tool with 2 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers search behavior, limit, and next steps. Could mention no-result case, but overall complete enough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains `query` as search term and `limit` as max results, but lacks details like default limit behavior or allowed input format. Basic semantics provided but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'WhatDoTheyKnow public authorities by name'. It specifies behavior (case-insensitive substring match), defines return limit, and distinguishes from siblings like build_request_url by indicating the slug as a next step.

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 gives clear examples and explains when to use this tool (to find authorities) and how to proceed with the slug. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it versus alternative tools, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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