pk_case_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by noting that the search is 'server-side' and operates on a fixed dataset of 1,414 judgments, which provides additional behavioral context beyond what annotations state. No contradictions.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the key action 'Full-text search'. Every word is purposeful without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its scope, and server-side behavior. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema, and the count of judgments provides useful context. Minor gap: no mention of sorting or pagination, but overall adequate.

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 descriptions for both parameters: query (free-text keywords with example) and limit (max results, default 10, range 1-20). The description adds only general context ('Full-text search over 1,414 judgments') but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'Supreme Court of Pakistan judgments', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pk_get_decision (retrieving a specific decision) and pk_search_laws (searching laws). The scope is specific: 'over 1,414 judgments'.

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 the context of use (searching judgments) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. The sibling tools give some implicit differentiation, but no direct guidance on exclusion criteria.

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