search_legal_precedents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool supports full-text search across specified courts, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on no results. Basic transparency but lacking depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The description lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., list of matching precedents with metadata). Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format. Also, no mention of pagination beyond limit parameter. Incomplete for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; 'supports full-text search' aligns with the query parameter but does not elaborate on format or examples.

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 it searches a database of legal precedents, specifically highlighting Supreme Court (SN) and CJEU (TSUE) rulings, and confirms full-text search capability. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_legal_precedent and list_reports.

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 legal precedents but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_legal_precedent for retrieving a single precedent. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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