search_judges

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 specifies returned fields (name, court, appointment, political affiliation) but does not disclose potential issues like no matches found, multiple matches, or required permissions. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Beispiele). The first sentence immediately conveys purpose. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return fields. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., partial name matching, error handling) but is sufficient for basic 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name'. The description compensates by explaining the parameter meaning ('Name des Richters') and providing concrete examples (e.g., 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg'), adding significant value 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 'Sucht Richter nach Name und zeigt deren Informationen' (Search for judges by name and shows their information), providing a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_cases, search_by_citation, and search_eu_law, which handle different entities.

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 implies usage for searching judges by name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed in context but not compared, limiting guidance.

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