list_courts

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the data source (entscheidsuche.ch) and scope (federal and cantonal courts). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description complements them well without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a simple list tool with rich annotations and a clear use case, the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, scope, and filtering without needing to detail return format or additional behaviors.

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% (based on context signals), so the description must compensate. It mentions the optional canton filter, which mirrors the schema's own description. No additional semantic detail is added, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 all courts indexed in entscheidsuche.ch and mentions optional canton filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which all deal with court decisions, making the 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 provides a clear use case ('Überblick über verfügbare Bundes- und Kantonsgerichte') and indicates when to use the canton parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context with siblings makes it obvious.

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