precedent_search

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (total, precedents[]), but fails to describe pagination behavior, error handling, or whether it is read-only. The retry hint is useful but incomplete for transparency.

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 very concise, using only two short sentences to convey essential information. It is efficient and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing brevity.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain parameter usage or expected behavior for page and page_size. The return format is mentioned, but overall context is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention query, page, or page_size at all. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 performs 'precedent search', identifying the specific verb and resource. It adds detail about priority order and retry strategy for keywords, which helps distinguish from related sibling tools like law_search and precedent_detail, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 usage guidance: prioritize direct case number search and reduce keyword word count on retry. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria.

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