search_case_law

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, it discloses that administrative results come from CETAT and judicial from JudiLibre, that courts filtering is limited to the current JudiLibre taxonomy, that date bounds filter on decision dates rather than applicability, and that the corpus is not exhaustive. These are behavioral facts that materially affect result interpretation.

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?

Four short, information-dense sentences with no filler; the most decision-relevant source mapping is front-loaded and caveats follow. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Critical caveats for correct invocation and interpretation are present: source systems, legal-order routing, courts-filter limitation, date semantics, and non-exhaustive corpus. The main gaps are the unannotated query/cursor behavior and the lack of return-shape guidance, but these are less likely to cause mis-selection for a read-only search tool.

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 0%, and the description compensates for legal_order (CETAT vs JudiLibre), courts (taxonomy limitation), and date bounds (decision dates). But query and cursor are left entirely unexplained, and date formats are not specified, so compensation is only partial.

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 never states 'searches case law' in a standalone verb phrase, but the tool name and source mapping ('Administrative order uses CETAT; judicial uses JudiLibre') make the scope clear. It is not a tautology, and the legal-order/source distinction helps separate it from broader search siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 clear in-tool routing by legal order and a hard constraint on the courts filter ('only supports current JudiLibre taxonomy'), plus date semantics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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