browse_full_corpus

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that total is a candidate pool count (not full database), seven structured fields are empty, doc_id is not reusable, and includes performance characteristics for province vs. cause filtering. It even cites empirical test results (Guangdong 20/20) to back claims.

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 somewhat lengthy but every part adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and unique selling point. The notes about empty fields and doc_id reusability could be more succinct, but given the tool's complexity and need for caveats, the length is justified.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is extremely complete. It explains return fields (including the ones that are empty), cross-tool relationships (doc_id with get_case), performance characteristics, and the meaning of total. It addresses all likely questions an agent might have.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the left-prefix search behavior and the performance trade-offs (province fast, cause slow). It also suggests province as 'suggested required' though not technically required, providing semantic context beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: browsing the full corpus of Chinese judgment documents, returning both full text and original links. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool providing both body_text and source_url, and contrasts with get_case by noting doc_id incompatibility.

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 explicit usage guidance: prioritize this tool when samples require verifiable links, recommends including province for speed, warns that cause filtering is slow and may timeout, and notes that doc_id from this tool will 404 in get_case. It gives practical tips for effective use.

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