search_case_law

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the search algorithm (FTS5 with BM25 ranking), coverage dependency, and listed courts. While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, it provides sufficient behavioral context for a read-only search tool.

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 four sentences, with the most critical information (purpose and courts) first, and no redundant or off-topic content. Every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it searches, ranking, coverage, available courts, source, and a critical negative directive. It is self-sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 Swedish court decisions (rattsfall) with specific courts listed, and contrasts with search_legislation, making its purpose 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?

Explicitly advises against using for statutes and directs to search_legislation instead, plus suggests calling 'about' to check coverage. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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