court_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and source, without mentioning output format, limitations, filtering options, rate limits, or any side effects. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the invocation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary repetition, filler, or tangential information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain the scope of the search (e.g., all federal courts or specific districts), possible result types, or any behaviors like deduplication or paging. The description is too minimal to fully equip an agent for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. The description only implies the 'name' parameter ('by name') and says nothing about the optional 'state' parameter. This is insufficient for a two-parameter tool, especially when the state parameter could be important for narrowing searches.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies a clear resource ('CourtListener/RECAP federal court records') along with the search target ('a person by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like people_search or person_sweep, which likely cover broader or different record types.

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 when to use the tool (when searching federal court records by name) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, so the guidance is minimal and inferred.

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