search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the return behavior (top-N results with full metadata, max 5 documents per query, and the MVP nature). No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph of four sentences in Polish. It includes some domain-specific commentary that, while informative, could be trimmed for conciseness. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The description covers the database scope, return metadata, result limit, and relationship with get_judgment. It is fairly complete for an MVP tool, though it could clarify the interaction between pageSize and the max 5 limit. The schema descriptions help fill in the gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema, so 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 searches the CBOSA database of administrative court judgments, specifies the courts included, and notes the domain (GDPR, tax, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning that detailed reading should use get_judgment and implies that search_by_case is for case number searches.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for broad searches) and explicitly instructs to use get_judgment for detailed document retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with search_by_case.

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