search_interpretations

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral traits: it performs full-text search across topic and reasoning documents, supports multiple filters (year, number range, old/new systems), and returns case IDs. It does not mention pagination or rate limits but is adequate for a read-oriented search tool.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. It is not overly verbose, but the parameter documentation could be slightly more compact. Overall, it efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

The description covers the parameters thoroughly but lacks details about the return format beyond 'each result includes case_id'. It does not describe pagination, error handling, or behavior if no results are found. Given no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters in Chinese, including default values and effects (e.g., 'year=0 means no filter', 'include_old only works when year=0'). This adds significant semantic value beyond the input 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 lists grand justice interpretations or constitutional court rulings with full-text search capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_interpretation by specifying that results carry case_id for direct retrieval.

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 implies usage when searching for interpretations, mentioning it supports keyword and year filters, and note that results can be used with get_interpretation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other search tools like search_judgments or search_regulations, nor does it provide exclusions.

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