search_judgments_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that source_url is always null (with specific test evidence), body_text is empty ~15% of the time, q only matches titles, and performance is slow without filters. These are critical behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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 informative and well-structured with warnings and alternatives, but slightly verbose. Important caveats are bolded, and information is front-loaded. Could be tightened without losing value.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields, null behavior, empty text detection, performance, and sibling tool differences. Comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 88%; description adds meaning: q only matches titles, cause is left-prefix matching, pageSize defaults to 20 and max 50. This goes beyond what the schema properties provide.

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 it performs full-text judgment search with multiple filters (keyword, province, cause, court, year range). It directly contrasts with sibling tools browse_full_corpus and search_judgments, making the specific purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: mentions browse_full_corpus for links+full text, search_judgments for links without full text, and provides instructions for when source_url is null. Also advises narrowing search with province/cause for performance.

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