Search BAILII Case Law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the search scope (full BAILII database) and return format (list with titles, citations, paths), which complements the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, and the second provides scope, output, and relation to a sibling tool. No unnecessary words, well-structured for quick understanding.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the search scope, output fields, and linkage to bailii_get_judgment. It is complete for a search tool of moderate complexity, though pagination or error states are not mentioned.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (query and max_results). The description only restates 'keyword or phrase' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 BAILII for UK case law by keyword/phrase, specifies the scope (full database including specific courts) and output fields (titles, citations, paths), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the document paths can be used with bailii_get_judgment.

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 context on when to use (to find cases) and implies the use of a sibling tool (bailii_get_judgment) to get full text, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like bailii_list_courts.

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