mop_search_adjutanten_journals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it specifies the return format with fields like id, monarch, date range, place, authors, snippet, and url, and even notes that ToolError is raised for invalid monarch or query failure. This goes beyond a basic search description, making the behavior predictable.

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 with bold headers and front-loaded purpose, but it is relatively long due to the detailed Args and Returns sections. While every sentence adds value, the length could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity, making it less concise than ideal.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, return fields, error behavior, and even alternatives to non-journal searches, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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?

All 7 parameters are explicitly described with types, formats, and examples: query is the full-text search term, monarch lists valid values, date_from/date_to require ISO format, person_key/place_key use register keys like 'P0002157', and limit defaults to 50. This fully compensates for the 0% 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 opens with 'Search in Adjutantenjournale (court adjutant journals)' and clearly states 'Find daily court journal entries documenting royal activities, audiences, meetings, and events.' This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like mop_get_adjutanten_journal_entry, which focuses on retrieving a single entry.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section lists concrete user queries (e.g., 'What did the king do on [date]?'), while 'WHEN NOT TO USE' provides explicit alternatives: search_register for biographical data, letters search in Schleiermacher Digital for correspondence, and browse_documents for institutional documents. This directly guides tool selection.

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