il_search_case_law

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals the corpus is a static HuggingFace dataset cached locally, has an undocumented license, and covers 10,558 judgments from specified courts. This provides essential behavioral context about data source, caching, and usage restrictions.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by crucial caveats about caching and licensing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's data scope, cache behavior, license concerns, and court coverage. It gives the agent sufficient context to decide when and how to invoke 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?

The input schema already contains 100% parameter description coverage for query, court, and limit. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool performs keyword search over a local corpus of Israeli court judgments, listing specific court types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like il_search_laws (statutes) and il_get_case (specific case retrieval).

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 notes the tool is NOT a live API call and uses a cached corpus, implying suitable use cases (offline/static analysis). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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