icu_search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates the search scope, the information source (InfoCuria), and the exact kind of payload returned: case numbers, ECLI, dates, and document IDs. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits, but for a metadata-search tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose and then states the return shape. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 is complete for a straightforward metadata search: it names the source, the resource type, and the fields returned, and it signals that IDs are for later retrieval. There is no output schema, so explaining the returned fields in prose is valuable. Minor gaps like sort order or pagination behavior are not critical for basic invocation.

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%, and the schema already defines query, language, and limit with examples and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('decisions and opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) via InfoCuria'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like icu_get_document and other legal search tools by jurisdiction and source. An agent can tell exactly what domain and operation this tool covers.

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 phrase 'for retrieval' implies that the returned document IDs are meant to be used with a subsequent retrieval tool, likely icu_get_document. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over other legal search tools. Usage context is implied rather than made explicit.

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