search_case_law

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that data is live from SAOS, includes snippet format (>>> <<< markers), and clarifies it's not legal advice requiring verification against official portals. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple mutation/read distinction.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: source identification, return format + sibling pointer, data separation nuance, and legal disclaimer. Slightly dense but efficient; no fluff. The data-source and disclaimer sentences add genuine value rather than padding.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers search purpose, return format, data source, sibling linkage, and legal caveats. For a 6-param tool with documentation-rich schema, this is reasonably complete. It could benefit from mentioning pagination or result-count limits more explicitly, but the defaults are in the schema.

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 6 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the query language (Polish full-text), the return format (snippets, court, case number, date), and the default sort behavior (relevance per the schema enum default). This supplements rather than repeats schema info.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Search') + resource ('Polish court judgments from SAOS API'). It names the data source, distinguishes from statutory law, and differentiates from siblings by noting that get_judgment fetches full text — making this the search counterpart. High clarity.

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?

Description gives clear when-to-use context (searching case law live from SAOS, separate from statutory law) and points to get_judgment as the follow-up for full text. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like find_judgments_for_provision or say when NOT to use this tool.

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