rii:search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns a list of decisions with metadata and doc IDs, and gives query format hints. However, it does not cover pagination, error handling, rate limits, or search behavior (e.g., exact vs fuzzy, case sensitivity), which are important for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information (purpose, federal source, state source, return format). No redundant or extraneous content; highly efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could provide more detail on what metadata is returned, result limits, and how to use doc IDs with sibling rii:get_decision. While it covers basic sources and return type, it lacks completeness for a search tool with three parameters and no structured output definition.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing the specific courts under each source and explicitly stating the return includes doc IDs for retrieval, which helps understand how search results link to get_decision. This extra context earns a 4.

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 for court decisions and specifies two sources (federal and Bavarian state courts), providing a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from sibling rii:get_decision by noting it returns a list of decisions with doc IDs for later retrieval, but could be more explicit about distinctions from other search tools on the server.

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 gives usage context by detailing default source and options, and implies that after search, doc IDs can be used for retrieval (likely via rii:get_decision). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling search tools like dip:search or arxiv:search, and does not state when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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