search_judgments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing result shape (global count header plus one page) and, importantly, the error semantics: missing counter header or zero counter yields count=0 with empty items rather than an error.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose then return/edge-case behavior. The internal detail (Solr, type=7383) is borderline noise but arguably useful for constructing filters, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still clarifies the count semantics and the empty-result case, which is exactly the gap an agent would hit when paginating. Nothing critical is missing for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little beyond the schema by restating that an empty query falls back to q=*:* with filter-only browsing, but the meaning of page, sort and filter syntax is left to the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Szuka) and resource (orzeczenia TK) and even identifies the backend (trybunal.gov.pl, type=7383). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_judgment_text or tk_coverage, so the agent must infer the search-vs-fetch split.

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?

Implicit guidance is present: an empty query means browsing by filter alone (q=*:*), which tells the agent how to do a list-everything search. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_judgment_text or tk_coverage.

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