de_oldp_case_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is a community aggregator (~424k decisions), not an official service, and notes the database license. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not cover pagination or response details (which the output schema likely handles).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential context about coverage, licensing, and tool routing. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description fully equips the agent: it explains what makes this tool unique, limitations (not official service), and when to use alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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% and each parameter has its own detailed description (e.g., text full-text search, court_slug examples, exact file_number). The description itself does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific action ('Search German case law') with scope ('all court levels') and names the exact source (Open Legal Data). It distinguishes itself from RII tools by emphasizing state-court coverage and full-text search, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 identifies when to use this tool (state courts, full-text needs) and when not to ('prefer the RII tools for the six federal supreme/constitutional courts'). It also clarifies that it is the only source covering state courts, leaving no ambiguity about the alternative.

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