search_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'a list of matching services with basic information,' which gives some behavioral context about the output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what constitutes 'basic information.' For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: one stating the action and scope, and another describing the output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity (a search function with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'basic information,' error cases, or how results are ordered/filtered. For a tool with zero structured coverage, more contextual details are needed to guide effective use.

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 0%, with one parameter 'query' undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'query' is used to search 'by name or description,' but it doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but falls short of fully explaining the parameter's purpose and usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for Berlin administrative services by name or description.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (Berlin administrative services), and scope (by name or description). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services' or 'get_service_details,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions returning 'basic information' but doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'get_service_details' for more details or 'list_services' for unfiltered listings. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are included.

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