search_judgments

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

Discloses that body_text is never returned (0/20 tested), that q only matches title not full text, and that broad queries may be slow with cold cache. No annotations exist, so description fully carries the burden.

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?

Single dense paragraph conveys all essential info. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but not verbose. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Without output schema, describes return fields (title, court, reason, date, case number, link). Covers purpose, limitations, performance, alternatives, and parameter tips. Complete for a complex 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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context: q's title-only matching, performance tip, and example values (e.g., '工商银行 信用卡'). Adds moderate value beyond 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?

Clearly states it is a general-purpose search over 1.2M+ Chinese judgments across 1200+ case types. Distinguishes from sibling search_cases (labor-only with quantification) and refers to search_judgments_full for full text.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (general case retrieval) and when-not (need full text). Recommends narrowing with reason/province for performance. Directs to alternatives (search_judgments_full, browse_full_corpus).

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