ncl_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: costs PACER credits, returns up to ~50 per page, and pagination via search_id+page. It could add more about error handling or authentication, but covers the most critical operational aspects.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, differentiation, cost, page size, pagination, and use cases—no filler. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 complex 18-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides purpose, alternatives, cost, pagination, and use cases. It does not describe the return structure beyond page count, but the schema handles parameter specifics. Slight gap on prerequisites like PACER credentials, but acceptable.

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 89%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the search_id+page pagination relationship but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It hints at party name usage but leaves parameter details to schema.

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 explicitly states the tool searches PACER's National Case Locator across all federal courts, providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling find_cases by noting it is 'more comprehensive' for party name searches, establishing clear differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'finding a person's cases across all courts, SSN lookups, cross-court party searches.' It also tells the agent when not to use it by contrasting with find_cases, so the agent can select correctly.

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