cpv_codes_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that matching codes come back with their descriptions; it does not disclose matching semantics, ordering, or that there is no persistence.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by domain context and the return shape. The return clause overlaps slightly with the first sentence's 'by code number or description' but nothing is wasteful.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and why it matters. Only result ordering/capping behavior is left unexplained, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `search` and `limit` are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates that the query can be a code number or description text, adding little beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (CPV classification codes), plus the two searchable fields (code number or description). The name is distinct from the plausible sibling nc_codes_search, but the description never explicitly says how it differs from that or from the various *_codes_list tools.

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?

Domain context is provided ('used in e-Transport declarations and public procurement'), which implies when an agent would want this. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs nc_codes_search, no guidance on prefix vs substring matching, and no pointer to a follow-up tool.

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