search_bger_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it searches BGer decisions with optional filter, which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 two short lines in German, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 search tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the domain and main filter. It could mention the other optional parameters (date, language, limit) but they are documented in the schema.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (query, chamber, date_from, date_to, language, limit). The description adds the domain context and emphasizes the chamber filter, but does not add new meaning beyond the 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 it searches specifically in Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions (BGer/BGE), with an optional chamber filter. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like search_court_decisions or get_court_decision.

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 mentions the use-case 'höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung' (highest court rulings) and optional chamber filter, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the siblings.

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