Search SEBI enforcement orders

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the critical non-obvious behavior: the corpus is a sampled subset and the response contains a corpus_size field. It also warns against over-generalizing from empty results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by the crucial sample caveat in an IMPORTANT callout. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only search tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides the one essential contextual fact needed to avoid a serious error: the corpus is a local sample, not a complete archive. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description restates that search can be by text, entity, or year, but adds no new parameter semantics such as interaction rules, defaults, or precedence. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Search', and names the exact resource, 'a LOCAL SAMPLE of SEBI enforcement orders', along with the search dimensions (text, entity, year). The explicit 'LOCAL SAMPLE' framing and domain distinction from the NSE/MF sibling tools make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit interpretive guidance: this is a small sample, not SEBI's complete archive, so empty results must be reported as 'no match in the sample' and never as evidence that SEBI issued no order. This is strong, actionable when-to-use and when-not-to-conclude guidance.

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