Search UK Case Law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are paginated and provides details about the return format and linked resources. While it doesn't disclose rate limits or authentication, the annotations cover the key behavioral aspects, making the description adequately transparent.

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 concise: 5 sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and return format, then immediately gives actionable instructions for handling results. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 (not shown but indicated) and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient completeness. It explains the output format, pagination, and how to drill into specific judgments, covering the full workflow from search to detail retrieval.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details but adds value by explaining how to navigate the returned resources (e.g., judgment:// URIs). This contextualizes the parameters without duplicating schema information, earning a higher score.

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 'Search UK case law via the TNA Find Case Law API' and specifies the return format (paginated judgment summaries with neutral citations, court, dates, stable URIs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like case_law_grep_judgment by indicating that this tool is for initial search, while the sibling is for content-based discovery within a 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 explicit guidance on how to use the results: 'Use the judgment://{slug}/header resource to inspect a result, then judgment://{slug}/index to discover paragraphs...' and directly contrasts with an alternative tool: 'For content-based discovery within a judgment, use case_law_grep_judgment.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus others.

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