search_direct_procurement_authorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the output token usage but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication needs (cookies parameter is optional but not explained), rate limits, error conditions, or what 'searching' entails (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity).

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about token usage is relevant but could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words, though slightly terse.

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 presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description adequately states the tool's purpose. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it lacks context on authentication, session handling, or result formatting, leaving gaps in operational understanding.

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 100%, providing good documentation for both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding extra value.

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 action ('Search authorities') and the resource ('for Direct Procurement'), with the specific operation 'idareAra' mentioned. It distinguishes from general 'search_authorities' by specifying 'Direct Procurement' context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_direct_procurement_parent_authorities'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_authorities' or 'search_direct_procurement_parent_authorities'. It mentions using the returned 'token' as idareId, which is a usage instruction but not comparative guidance.

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