browse_published

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: results are paginated at 100 per page with page starting at 0, and the court filter is applied locally within the current page rather than globally. This local-filter caveat is genuinely important for correct use. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or read-only status, so it is not fully complete.

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?

A one-line purpose followed by a tight bullet ladder that front-loads the no-argument behavior and escalates by specificity. Every line carries information; there is no filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, and the description does explain the hierarchical responses conceptually. Combined with the pagination and local-filter disclosures, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though permission/read-only context is absent for a no-annotation tool.

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 compensate, and it does: year, month, and day are explained as the drill-down controls, page as the 0-based pagination index, and court as an optional court code/name filter. The main gap is format detail for court (accepted code vs name form) and any valid ranges for month/day.

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 names a specific action (browsing) plus the exact resource and axis (official opendata API by publication date), and then decomposes the tool into an explicit drill-down hierarchy. An agent can immediately tell this is a date-hierarchical browser rather than a free-text search like search_decisions or a single-record get_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?

It maps every argument combination to the resulting view (no args -> years/counts, year -> months, year+month -> days, full date -> decision list), which tells the agent precisely how to walk the hierarchy. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as search_decisions or find_by_case_number, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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