search_court_decisions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by detailing the response structure (title, abstract, link, curated Markdown, and machine-readable envelope with source, license, match_type, count, total, results), which goes beyond annotations.

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 composed of two short, focused sentences followed by a bulleted list of response components. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and provides all necessary information without 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?

Given the rich annotations and detailed input schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and output structure. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by enumerating response fields, making the tool fully understandable for selection and 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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters (query, filters, limit, etc.) with examples. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond mentioning the supported filter types, so it provides minimal added value over 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 performs full-text search of Swiss court decisions via entscheidsuche.ch, covering federal and cantonal courts. This verb+resource+scope effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_court_decision (single retrieval) or search_bger_decisions (limited to federal court).

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 use-case is explicitly described as legal research across all Swiss courts with filter support. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings (e.g., for narrower searches use search_bger_decisions), so it misses explicit alternatives.

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