at_case_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP mapping (GET /Judikatur) and outlining the structure of results (ecli, citation, URLs), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds behavioral detail about hits. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the core functionality. It lacks details on pagination or default parameter behavior, but these are covered by the schema and default values. The description is adequate for a search tool with rich structured data.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage. No param-level details are reiterated.

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 'Search Austrian case law (RIS Judikatur)', identifying the specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like at_search, which may be used for broader searches, but the name and context imply a specialized scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as at_search or at_get_case_text. The description omits context scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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