search_case_law

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it searches case summaries and keywords and that it only covers court decisions, which is useful scope clarification. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., list of matching summaries). This is a moderate gap for a search tool without an output schema.

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: it leads with the core purpose, follows with the filtering capabilities, and ends with the when-not-to-use guidance. Each sentence earns its place with 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 search tool with no output schema, the description should explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of case summaries) and any limitations. It does not, instead only implying that it searches summaries. It also doesn't mention whether results are paginated or what the limit parameter does beyond the schema. The description is adequate for basic usage but leaves some important details to inference.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description reiterates the court and date range filters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify parameter formats or provide additional context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches Finnish court decisions (oikeustapaukset) and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_legislation by noting it covers only court decisions. The verb 'search' and resource 'court decisions' are specific, and the differentiation from the sibling tool is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative tool (search_legislation) and the condition (need for statute text). This is a clear, actionable usage directive that leaves no ambiguity about selection between siblings.

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