search_uitspraken

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API source, the faceted-search behavior, the absence of free-text matching, the ECLI lookup behavior, and the output elements (ECLIs, links, viewer). It does not mention pagination or auth, but these are at least partly visible in the schema, and the core behavioral caveats are present.

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, led by the action and output, with all content earning its place. It is front-loaded and compact, avoiding restatement of the schema properties.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete conceptual model: what is searched, how to filter, what is ignored, and where to get identifiers. It falls slightly short by not describing pagination defaults or the shape of a 'summary', but the schema covers parameter details and the core orientation is sufficient.

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% and parameter descriptions already include details like OWMS URIs, date formats, and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the API as facet-only, clarifying that `query` is exclusively an ECLI and non-ECLI values are ignored, and pointing to list_waardelijsten for valid identifiers, pushing it above baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Dutch case law') and clearly distinguishes this from free-text and ECLI lookup modes. The tool's faceted nature and unique output (ECLIs + links + PrudAI viewer) are stated in the first sentence, so an agent can tell it apart from bulk or retrieval siblings.

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?

It explicitly warns that the tool has no free-text keyword matching and directs users to list_waardelijsten for valid facet identifiers, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also describes the ECLI-as-query use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast against the bulk or single-decision sibling tools, so the exclusion guidance is partial.

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