search_litigation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches by certain fields and omits important behaviors such as ILIKE wildcard semantics, pagination behavior, default page size, or return format. This lacks the depth needed for an agent to anticipate how the tool actually behaves at runtime.

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 that front-loads the primary verb and resource, followed by a concise list of filtering dimensions. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool has 8 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, response structure, or edge cases like wildcard usage, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.

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 only 50%, with date_to, date_from, action_type, and release_number left undocumented in the schema. The description lists 'date' generally and mentions action type, but it adds no format constraints, allowed values, or date-range semantics, and it omits release_number entirely. Thus it under-compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Search SEC litigation releases' and enumerates the key filters (defendant, title, action type, date). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_enforcement or search_filings, which target different SEC data domains.

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 usage context is implied by the resource name and the listed filters, suggesting it should be used when an agent needs to find SEC litigation releases. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_enforcement or full_text_search, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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