search_case_law

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses several behavioral traits: returns specific fields (ECLI, court, date, summary, keywords), supports FTS with filters, handles direct ECLI lookups alternatively, returns an empty array when no matches, and notes the free-tier upgrade notice. This gives the agent a clear picture of expected outcomes and limitations.

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 three sentences long, with the primary purpose stated first, followed by return value, features, and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place: function, capabilities, ECLI alternative, tier restriction, and empty result behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, key behavioral details (empty array, tier restriction), and the main usage pattern (query vs. ecli). It does not list every filter, but the schema covers those details, and the description summarizes them sufficiently. Given the tool's complexity, this is complete.

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?

Since the input schema already describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'ecli' and 'query' (mutually exclusive use cases) and by summarizing the filter categories (court, legal domain, procedure type, date range), which reinforces the schema. However, it doesn't add significant new syntax or format details 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 the tool's function: 'Search Dutch court decisions from rechtspraak.nl (202K+ decisions)'. It specifies the resource (Dutch case law), the source (rechtspraak.nl), and the scope (202K+ decisions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_legislation and search_parliamentary_proceedings. The verb 'Search' is action-oriented and concrete.

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 gives specific usage guidance, notably 'For direct ECLI lookup, use the ecli parameter instead of query.' It also mentions the professional tier limitation, which is critical for deciding whether to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling alternatives, the focus on case law naturally separates it from legislation and parliamentary searches.

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