search_decisions

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it explains the domain-based search, the optional includeText flag for precedents, and the domain-specific options, without contradicting any 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 concise: one main sentence introducing the tool, followed by two short sentences with a critical usage example. It front-loads the key information and avoids unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, nested options, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and provides a concrete example. However, it does not describe the output format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds substantial value by listing the 18 domain values inline and explaining the domain-specific options (e.g., for precedent and tax_tribunal). This goes beyond the minimal schema descriptions.

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's purpose: integrated search across 18 specified legal domains. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('decisions'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'search_law' by listing the exact domains covered.

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 a clear use case (searching across domains) and a detailed example for searching precedent text with options. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use alternative tools like 'get_decision_text' or 'search_law', though the domain list implies differentiation.

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