saos_search_judgments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: exact phrases require quotes, unquoted queries become AND across words causing false hits, keyword is an editorial taxonomy independent of content, and judgmentType=SENTENCE targets substantive judgments. This goes beyond the schema and provides valuable operational nuances.

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 sections (golden rule, strategy, examples) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Although somewhat long, each section earns its place by offering actionable guidance for a search tool with 10 parameters.

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 search tool (10 params, no output schema), the description covers the most critical parameters: query semantics, keyword behavior, judgmentType, ccCourtType, caseNumber, and date narrowing. It also provides troubleshooting. It omits minor details like pagination or judgeName, but those are self-explanatory from the schema, so the description is adequate.

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 substantial semantic value by explaining how to format queries (quoting), the meaning of keyword as a curated taxonomy, and how to combine parameters for better precision. Examples illustrate query+keyword and query+judgmentType combinations, exceeding 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 opens with 'Wyszukuje orzeczenia sądowe w bazie SAOS' which is a specific verb+resource (searches court judgments in SAOS) and adds sort order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like saos_get_judgment (retrieval) and saos_list_courts (court list).

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 context and a detailed layered strategy for when to use quotes, combine query with keyword, and add judgmentType or ccCourtType. It also includes concrete examples and troubleshooting advice. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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