lt_search_court_rulings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered and the description need not repeat it. It does add one genuinely new behavioral fact — results come back "newest first" — which affects how an agent consumes output. It says nothing about total counts, empty-result behavior, or whether pagination beyond limit exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (Constitutional Court, TAR registration, newest-first ordering) carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, full parameter coverage, and complete annotations, the description only needs to establish scope and ordering, which it does. The one residual gap is that a limit-only, newest-first tool gives the agent no hint about how to reach older results or how many exist.

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 100%, including examples for `contains` and the ruling_type enumeration spelled out in prose, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable here since the schema carries the burden.

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?

Specific verb ("Search") plus a precisely scoped resource (Constitutional Court acts registered in TAR), with the Lithuanian term disambiguating the institution. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like lt_find_rulings_on_act or lt_get_court_ruling, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 never states when to use this tool versus lt_find_rulings_on_act (rulings about a specific act) or lt_get_court_ruling (fetch one ruling by id). No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are given; usage is only implied by the word "Search".

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