cz_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering the safety and behavior profile. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond the search intent, such as case-insensitive matching or pagination behavior. It is adequate but does not leverage the opportunity to provide context 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose: searching Czech acts by year and/or citation substring. No superfluous words; every part earns its place.

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 a full output schema, detailed input schema descriptions, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does and the key search criteria, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 100%, so every parameter has a description in the schema. The description reiterates the two primary filtering parameters (year and contains) but does not mention limit or offset. This adds some context by summarizing the main criteria, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (search), the resource (Czech acts), and the criteria (year and/or citation substring). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'cz_get_act' and 'cz_get_text', which retrieve specific acts or texts, by focusing on search functionality.

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 directly tells the user to use this tool for searching Czech acts by year or citation substring. It implies the primary use case but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or when to use siblings instead. The verb 'search' clearly differentiates from 'get' siblings, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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