Search EU case law

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: query uses AND-of-tokens matching over titles, provision verifies direct citations and returns evidence, and interpreted_celex is instrument-level metadata. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then clarifies key parameter nuances. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the scope it covers.

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?

With 12 parameters, no required fields, and a low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively. It covers only three parameters and omits details like date formats, court values, document types, and relationship between parameters. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the input-side gaps.

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?

The description explains the semantics of three parameters (query, provision, interpreted_celex), which adds clarity. However, schema_description_coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the other 8 parameters (ecli, celex, court, limit, date_to, date_from, language, case_number, document_type) that lack descriptions. This leaves significant ambiguity for agents constructing valid calls.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Search authoritative EU case law.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as search_eu_law, which likely overlaps in purpose, so it misses the opportunity to set it apart.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of search_eu_law or any other sibling, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent is left to infer the context from the tool name alone.

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