search_federal_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that PACER credentials are required, which is essential. However, it does not describe read-only behavior, rate limits, response format beyond what the output schema provides, or error handling for missing credentials. It adds some useful context but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a clear list of use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 five optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, required credentials, and typical use cases. It does not explain whether all parameters are mutually exclusive or how broad a search can be, but the output schema covers return values, making the description reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with examples and formats. The description does not add relationship between parameters (e.g., how court_id and case_name interact) or filter behavior, so it adds only marginal meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('PACER for federal court cases and filings') and states concrete use cases (find active federal cases, check filing status, look up case numbers). This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_case_law and get_federal_case.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('Use this to find active federal cases, check filing status, or look up case numbers') and mentions a prerequisite (PACER credentials). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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