cases_search

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

The description mentions behavioral features like 'advanced query expansion, faceting, and snippet highlighting' which aid in understanding outcomes. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, or performance implications. With no annotations, the description partially carries the transparency burden but lacks completeness.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key features. No unnecessary words, and it provides a clear overview without 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?

Given the rich schema (5 parameters, 100% coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics but lacks output details (e.g., return format explanation) and differentiation from 15 sibling tools. It is minimally complete for a search tool but leaves gaps in agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by summarizing filters (court, date range, area of law, procedure type) that map to the filter parameter, and hints at query expansion behavior. However, it adds little beyond what the schema already defines for each parameter, maintaining the 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 clearly states the tool searches Dutch court cases with advanced features (query expansion, faceting, snippet highlighting) and supported filters. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like cases_search_by_article, the purpose is well-defined and specific enough for an agent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cases_search_by_article for article-specific searches). The description lists capabilities but doesn't provide context for selection or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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