search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral details: coverage uneven by court type, dates may be OCR-distorted, possible error types. This goes beyond annotations to set proper expectations.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds information about coverage, limitations, use cases, or errors.

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?

Covers scope, limitations, use cases, and errors. Missing details about result format or pagination behavior (though pageNumber parameter exists). Given no output schema, a brief note on return structure would improve completeness.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. Description adds marginal value by warning about date distortion (relevant to dateFrom/dateTo) and mentioning courtType enumeration pitfalls, but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond schema.

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?

Description starts with clear verb 'Przeszukuje' (searches) and specific resource 'baze orzeczen sadow polskich w SAOS'. It distinguishes from siblings by implying this tool is for broad search across multiple fields, while siblings like 'search_by_case' are likely more specific.

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?

Description provides clear context for when to use (analysis of case law, precedents, searching by content/signature/judge/legal basis) and explicitly states what not to use (administrative courts not indexed). However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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