de_case_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by mapping to GET /v1/case-law and stating the output fields per item (ecli, human_readable_citation, source_url). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits, rate constraints, or query syntax requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the API mapping and key output attributes. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with a nested query object and an output schema, the description gives the essential action and result fields, but lacks usage guidance relative to its many siblings. It does not explain when to prefer this tool, which is a notable gap given the crowded sibling list. The description is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for correct selection among alternatives.

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 100%, so the input schema (including the query object's description listing search_term, date_from/to, size, page_index, sort) already explains the parameters. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics—its mention of output fields is not related to inputs. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('German federal court decisions in NeuRIS'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the specificity of 'German federal court decisions in NeuRIS' is sufficiently distinctive to separate it from broader tools like de_search or de_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings (e.g., de_rii_case_search, de_oldp_case_search). It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the resource name.

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