search_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key constraint: only the Consumer Affairs Agency's published content and source URL are returned, not full orders or metadata. It also enumerates filterable fields. It does not mention sorting, pagination behavior, or what happens with no filters, but the search semantics are clear.

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?

Two compact sentences with front-loaded verb and resource. The first sentence defines the capability; the second defines the output contract. No redundant wording.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filters, and return format. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions, an agent can call it. Remaining gaps (result ordering, filter combination semantics, behavior with no query) are not addressed, but they are secondary.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (dates, limit, query, provision). The description restates query/provision filters but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and it omits the order_type filter entirely. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (search) and a precise resource (orders under the Premiums and Representations Act), and clarifies the searchable fields. It implicitly differentiates from siblings get_case/list_recent/stats by framing itself as a filtered search that returns only published content and source URLs. However, it never names the sibling alternatives, so differentiation is indirect.

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 implies usage when you need to find cases by business name, product name, provision, or text and only the published content plus source URL is sufficient. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_case for full details or list_recent for recent items, leaving routing to inference.

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