detc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context about pagination (max 100 results per page), response format options (HTML/XML), and search types (decision name vs full text), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 (description, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded purpose. While comprehensive, some parameter explanations could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, but the parameter section is lengthy due to the high parameter count.

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 search tool with 12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent parameter documentation and behavioral context. The main gap is lack of output format details beyond 'search results with Constitutional Court decision list or error' - more specifics about the response structure would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters, the description carries the full burden. It provides detailed explanations for all parameters including defaults, constraints (max 100 for display), format specifications (YYYYMMDD for dates), and enumerated values (sort options, search types). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 searches Constitutional Court decisions with the specific resource identified. It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying 'Constitutional Court decisions' rather than other legal documents, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all search tools in the sibling 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 implies usage through examples showing different search scenarios (keyword search, date search), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detc_service' or other search tools in the sibling list. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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