search_health_precedents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sources and return shape (decision summaries, document IDs, relevance scores), but it does not explain sourceMode semantics or any access/limitation considerations, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 compact and front-loads the usage preference before describing the search and return values. The example is concise, though its parameter mismatch is a semantic issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description gives strong routing and return-value information. However, it omits explanation of the required input parameter and the sourceMode enum, and the example conflicts with the schema, leaving invocation details incomplete.

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 explain parameters, but it does not explain the required 'question' parameter. Worse, the example uses 'searchTerms', which is not a schema parameter, creating a direct mismatch that could mislead invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching health-related court decisions from Yargitay and Danistay. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack by positioning itself as the isolated precedent-search tool.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: prefer prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack for end-to-end questions, and use this tool only when court precedent search is specifically needed in isolation. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance needed.

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