nl_case_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds a key behavioral constraint: no free-text query. This goes beyond annotations and provides valuable transparency, though it could mention more about pagination or result limits.

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: purpose, limitation and filter options, and next step. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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's 5 optional parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the data source, the filtering workflow, the no-text limitation, and the recommended follow-up tool. It is sufficiently complete for someone to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that creator and subject are authority URIs and that date_from/date_to form a range. It also suggests the follow-up fetch, enhancing understanding of parameter usage.

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 lists Dutch court decisions by metadata filters, specifying the data source (Rechtspraak Open Data). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning nl_get_decision for fetching, but does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools.

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 explains that there is no free-text query and recommends filtering by date range with optional authority URIs, then fetching a decision with nl_get_decision. This provides clear usage context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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