search_decisions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait — that it relies on the undocumented API of rozhodnuti.justice.cz — but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or pagination behavior beyond the page/limit params. The return-value sentence duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact bullet-per-parameter list that is easy to scan, and the length is justified by 17 parameters. Minor waste in the trailing sentence describing the return payload, which the output schema already covers.

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 17-parameter, annotation-free search tool with an output schema, the description supplies the parameter semantics, input formats, and a hand-off to get_decision, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of covering error/rate-limit behaviour on the undocumented upstream API.

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 coverage is 0% across 17 params, and the description compensates fully: it explains every parameter's meaning, gives the mode semantics (ALL/ANY/EXACT), enum-like values for types and affected, comma-separated multi-value syntax for court/keywords/types, date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), and concrete examples such as '§ 2991 z. č. 89/2012 Sb.' and '89/2012'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Vyhledávání soudních rozhodnutí') plus scope (fulltext + filtry), and points to get_decision(uuid) as the follow-up for full text. It does not differentiate from siblings like find_by_case_number or browse_published, which also retrieve decisions, so the routing is only partially resolved.

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?

Usage is implied through the parameter catalogue rather than stated: no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion against find_by_case_number/browse_published, and it never tells the agent to resolve courts/keywords via list_courts or list_keywords even though it accepts codes. Adequate for a search tool but leaves alternative selection to inference.

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