de_oldp_case_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context about data source (community aggregator, database license, not official) which is beyond what annotations provide, but doesn't contradict them.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: states purpose, adds context about source and license, provides sibling differentiation. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Despite complex nested input schema and existence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope, limitations, and relationship to siblings. Agent can correctly select and invoke the tool based on this description.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., text field explains full-text search ignores other filters). Description adds no extra parameter meanings beyond the schema, so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' and resource 'German case law across ALL court levels via Open Legal Data'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's the only source covering state courts and full-text search, and explicitly contrasts with RII tools for federal courts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for state courts, full-text search) and when not (prefer RII tools for federal supreme/constitutional courts). Also notes it's not an official service, providing clear guidance.

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