ABD rekabet karari ara

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly notes 'Kunye uydurulmaz; ham API verisidir' (does not fabricate metadata; raw API data), which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. It also clarifies it returns specific fields (case name, court, date, citation, opinion_id) without describing every edge case.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value: what it does, query format examples, and data authenticity note.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, query language, return fields, and data trustworthiness. It doesn't explicitly mention optional filters like court/date, but those are fully described in the input schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for agent use.

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% with all six parameters documented. The description adds example queries and output fields but does not elaborate on parameter formats or nuances beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline without significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it performs full-text search in US federal case law (CourtListener) specifically for competition/antitrust decisions, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes this as a search tool from the likely retrieval-oriented sibling tool by describing its search scope and output.

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 provides clear usage context: user should supply English keywords and examples are given ('consumer welfare Sherman Act'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention the sibling alternative, but the search vs. retrieval distinction is implied strongly enough.

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