search_das

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose some behavioral traits, such as 'since' meaning 'lodged on or after this ISO date' and 'limit' having a max of 100. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects/safety expectations beyond the parameter-level details.

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: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean 'Args:' list. Each parameter gets one line with a short explanation, no redundancy, and the most important filter types (state, council, category) lead the list. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool description covers all parameters thoroughly, including examples and defaults. An output schema exists, so return value details are not necessary. The main gap is lack of guidance on result scope (e.g., what happens with no filters) and error behavior, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with concrete examples (e.g., council 'City of Melbourne', category 'Renovation / Extension'), allowed values (status_group enum, states), format requirements (ISO date), and constraints (limit max 100, page default). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 begins with 'Search development applications with filters,' which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from siblings like get_da (single record) and nearby_das (location-based) implicitly by focusing on filter-based search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this for filtering by council/suburb' or 'for nearby DAs use nearby_das.' The description simply lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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