il_search_case_law

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool is 'NOT a live API call', explains the local cache mechanism ('downloaded once and cached locally'), and provides a licensing caveat ('treat results as for analysis, not for redistribution'). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description enriches transparency.

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 with three sentences front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second explains the local cache nature, third adds licensing. Every sentence provides value without 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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers purpose, caching behavior, and licensing. It is nearly complete, but could optionally mention when to use sibling tools for different tasks.

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 has 100% description coverage, so all parameters (query, court, limit) have their own descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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, pre-downloaded corpus of Israeli court judgments.' The verb 'search' and resource 'case law' are specific, and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like 'il_get_case' (retrieve specific case) and 'il_search_laws' (search laws).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'il_search_laws' or 'il_get_case'. It focuses on the local, static nature of the data but does not state conditions for preferring this search over other operations.

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