search_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions no side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior beyond searching. Since it's a search tool, it's likely read-only, but the description does not confirm this.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return format (cases with name, court, date, citation, excerpt). Lacks details on pagination or ordering, but is mostly complete for a search tool.

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 0% description coverage, yet the description fully explains each parameter: query as search terms, court as optional filter with examples (scotus, ca1-11, dcd), and limit with default (10) and max (20). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it searches over 3 million US court decisions by keywords, using the specific verb 'Durchsucht' and resource 'US-Gerichtsentscheidungen'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_eu_law (EU law) and search_by_citation (citation search).

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?

Examples show typical usage patterns, and the court parameter list provides guidance for filtering. However, it lacks explicit statements about when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use search_by_citation) or when not to use it.

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