Search UK Case Law

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states that the tool is the authoritative source, describes the return format (pagination, neutral citation, court, dates, slug, stable TNA URI), and discloses a known issue with date filters being ignored. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, post-call actions, coverage, and authority. It is slightly verbose but every section adds necessary information. The most important usage instruction is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex tool with multiple parameters and post-processing steps, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the results, coverage limitations, and when to use alternative tools. It also references sibling tools by name, integrating well with the ecosystem.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by summarizing parameter types in the first sentence and providing specific guidance for the judge parameter (case-insensitive substring match, avoid honorifics). While the schema already contains these details, the description reinforces them in a user-friendly way, adding value.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK case law by party names, court, judge, date, or free-text query.' It specifies the resource (UK case law) and verb (search), and distinguishes from siblings by providing post-call instructions for other tools like judgment_get_header and citations_resolve.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool, including coverage limitations (early 2000s onwards) and a warning not to supplement with web search. It provides a strategy for narrowing results (use court + year filters before grep-iterating) and directs to alternative tools for further actions, like using case_law_grep_judgment for text within a judgment.

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