search_office_actions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's unavailable status and the reason for it, which is critical. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or any other behavioral caveats, though 'search' implies read-only. Minor gap.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose line, an IMPORTANT warning, and a formatted Args list. It is slightly verbose due to the Args block, but every line adds necessary value given the lack of schema descriptions. It earns a strong score, though not a 5 due to the extra length.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides purpose, availability status, alternatives, and parameter details. It doesn't cover edge cases or output format, but the output schema exists. The unavailability warning is thoroughly handled, making it largely complete.

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%, so the description compensates by describing all 8 parameters with meaningful semantics (e.g., 'mail_date_from: Date range start (YYYY-MM-DD)'). It also clarifies defaults for offset and limit, and specifies the date format, adding value beyond 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 states 'Search office actions across applications' — a clear, specific verb ('search') and object ('office actions') with scope ('across applications'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_office_action_text (which retrieves specific text) and ppubs_search_applications (which searches applications).

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 explicitly says 'Temporarily unavailable — legacy endpoints decommissioned, ODP migration pending. Use odp_get_documents or odp_get_transactions instead.' This provides direct when-not-to-use guidance and names concrete alternatives, fulfilling the usage guideline requirement.

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