search_acr_decisions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'search' without mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the returned data looks like. The tool's behavior is largely opaque.

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 single short sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though it could be considered overly minimal.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context about the tool's behavior, return format, or limitations. It is incomplete for a search tool with five parameters.

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% description coverage, meaning each parameter is already explained (e.g., query, display, page, sort, apiKey). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: searching for decisions of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). It uses a verb+resource structure ('search for decisions') and, given the context of sibling tools, specifically names the commission to differentiate from other search tools like search_admin_appeals or search_precedents.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without indicating scenarios where it is most appropriate or when other sibling tools should be preferred.

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