de_rii_case_search

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it filters over the master table of contents, has no full-text search (TOC carries no decision text), and covers specific federal courts. This informs the agent about the nature of the results and data source, which annotations do not provide.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence gives the core purpose; the second packs source, coverage scope, alternative comparison, filter types, and a limitation into one well-structured sentence. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a search tool with a nested query object and an output schema, the description covers the query scope, data source, completeness status, filter types, and the absence of full-text. It also differentiates from a known alternative. The agent has all necessary context to decide when to call this tool and what to expect.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions the filter fields (court, Aktenzeichen substring, date range) but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema states. It does clarify that the search operates on metadata (TOC) rather than full text, which helps interpret the parameters, but this is a general clarification, not parameter-specific detail.

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 verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('German federal court decisions'), and a specific source ('rechtsprech-im-internet.de (RII)'). It also distinguishes itself from NeuRIS's `/v1/case-law` by noting its completeness, making it clear which tool is which among the many search siblings.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with NeuRIS's `/v1/case-law`, calling the latter a 'small beta slice', which implies this tool is preferred for complete coverage. It also states a key limitation ('there is no full-text search'), indirectly telling the agent when to choose a different tool. While it doesn't list alternative tools by name, the context signals and sibling list provide enough to infer usage boundaries.

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