it_case_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the search is full-text, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on open-world behavior, pagination, or other runtime characteristics beyond what annotations and output schema 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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant wording. It earns its place entirely.

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 straightforward read-only search tool, the description, along with the fully described schema and existing output schema, provides sufficient context. All required and optional inputs are documented, and annotations confirm the non-destructive, idempotent nature of the operation.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters, including defaults and allowed values. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a full-text search over Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) decisions, using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting other courts, such as it_cassazione_search and it_ga_search.

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 implies the tool is for full-text searching Italian Constitutional Court decisions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative tools like it_case_get_decision, it_case_recent, or it_cassazione_search. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.

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