rii_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does say the tool 'Returns list of decisions with metadata and doc IDs for retrieval,' setting clear return expectations. It also clarifies the default source and which jurisdictions each source covers. It does not explicitly call out read-only semantics, but 'Search' plus a return list makes the non-destructive nature reasonably clear.

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 four dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded, and each sentence contributes either source coverage or return behavior. The long enumeration of state source codes is somewhat heavy but necessary for source selection.

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 plus the fully documented schema gives an agent the source model, defaults, paging caveats, and return type (list with metadata and doc IDs). It lacks a full output field list, though no output schema exists, and it does not explicitly navigate the sibling tool landscape.

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 the input schema already documents all seven parameters with defaults, constraints, and usage notes. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable under the baseline.

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'), a clear resource ('court decisions'), and enumerates the covered jurisdictions and portals, so an agent immediately knows this is the German court-decision search tool. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling search tools such as ris_search or eul_search, but the resource specification is enough to distinguish it from rii_get_decision.

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 clear usage context: the default source is BUND federal courts, state source codes are enumerated, and the source parameter notes that ALL is the right choice for a topic survey because state courts are not covered by BUND. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling search tools, so full exclusion guidance is missing.

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