nc_codes_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Search' implies it), doesn't describe return format, whether partial matches are supported, case sensitivity, or pagination behavior beyond what the limit parameter implies. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a modest 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 a compact two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by domain context and expected return. No wasted words, though it could potentially be trimmed further given the schema already covers parameter details.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably adequate. It conveys purpose, the classification system (NC/NACE), use case (e-Transport), and returns matching codes. However, it doesn't clarify whether results include hierarchical parent/sibling codes, how matching works (exact vs fuzzy), or any limits on the search more explicitly.

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%, so both parameters ('search' as code number or description text, 'limit' with max/default) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that search accepts 'code number or description text' which adds slight value but largely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Search NC classification codes') and the domain context (e-Transport declarations for goods classification). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the NC code type, though there is a sibling 'cpv_codes_search' which shares a similar search pattern and could have been explicitly contrasted.

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 some usage context ('used in e-Transport declarations for goods classification') but does not give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives like cpv_codes_search or distinguish from other product/code lookup tools, though the NC-specific context offers implied usage direction.

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