de_rii_case_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool searches over a 'master table of contents' (not full text), cites an independent audit for completeness, and lists the specific courts covered. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the data source and search scope.

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 well-structured with two paragraphs; the first sentence immediately states the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (e.g., source authority, audit findings, filter scope, limitation). A minor reduction from 5 because it could be slightly more compact, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (nested query object, 6 sub-parameters), the presence of output schema, and annotations handling safety/bounds, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the data source, completeness verification, filter capabilities, and limitation (no full-text search). The agent has all necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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% (every parameter has a description). The tool description summarizes the filter categories (court, Aktenzeichen substring, date range) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search German federal court decisions via rechtsprechung-im-internet.de (RII).' It identifies the specific verb (search), resource (RII case law aggregator), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that NeuRIS's `/v1/case-law` is an incomplete beta slice. The purpose is unambiguous and well-contextualized.

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 endpoint, implying when to use (when complete coverage of federal courts is needed). It also notes that there is no full-text search, setting expectations. While it does not explicitly state 'when not to use,' the context is sufficient for an agent to make an informed choice among siblings.

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