Search Philippine jurisprudence

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it uses lexical FTS5/BM25 matching, returns structured citations, and reports insufficient corpus coverage rather than guessing below a confidence threshold. It also details pagination behavior with hasMore/nextOffset.

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, front-loaded with the core search purpose, and every sentence contributes either scope, caveat, behavioral transparency, or operational guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 rich annotations and a full input schema, the description covers the essential context: corpus scope, safety/behavioral disclaimers, result nature, confidence fallback, and pagination. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds practical semantics: pagination via offset with hasMore/nextOffset, and using court to narrow results. These additions go beyond simple schema repetition.

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?

States a specific verb ('search') over a specific resource ('case corpus' covering SC, CA, SB, CTA decisions), which clearly distinguishes it from statute or issuance search tools. The description also clarifies that it is information retrieval, not legal advice.

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 when to use this tool by specifying it searches case law, and gives in-tool guidance like 'Use court to narrow results.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_statute or related_cases, so the when-to-use vs alternatives is left mostly to inference.

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