search_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, etc. The description adds value by explaining domain-specific options and use cases, such as including full text for precedents and specifying the nts domain for tax interpretations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence packed with useful information. It is concise but not overly long, with a clear structure: first states purpose, then gives specific hints. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description does not explain return values or output format. It covers input usage well with domain-specific examples but omits what the agent can expect as output.

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% (baseline 3). The description goes beyond schema by providing practical examples for using the 'options' parameter (e.g., includeText, detailLimit) and specific domain values like 'nts', enhancing 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 is an integrated search across 18 legal domains. It specifies the verb (search) and resource (decisions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_law, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 specific usage hints for full-text precedents (domain='precedent' with options) and tax-related NTS (domain='nts'). However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like search_law.

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