Court cases (Portal Just)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds operational traits those don't cover: a 1000-case search cap, typical 1-5s latency, and 3h caching. It also explains the noise profile of name searches and why names may mismatch, which materially affects how an agent interprets results.

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?

It is front-loaded with the returned data set before moving to usage advice and operational notes, and every sentence carries information (cui preference, role interpretation, cap, latency, caching). It is dense and slightly longer than minimal, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it lists the fields, the party role counts, and the insolvency-debtor listing. Combined with the 100%-documented parameter schema and the operational notes (cap, cache, latency), an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 schema already documents all six parameters in detail (cui, court, limit, party, since, case_number). The description adds selection meaning beyond the schema by explaining why cui is preferred over party and how to read party roles, which is genuine guidance rather than repetition.

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 names a specific resource (court cases from Portal Just, the Romanian courts portal) and enumerates what each record contains — case number, court, category, stage, subject, parties/roles, outcome, next hearing. It also scopes the tool's special behavior (role counting and insolvency-as-debtor detection), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns without opening a schema. No sibling covers court data, so no differentiation gap exists.

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?

It gives an explicit routing preference ("Prefer cui for companies") with the reason (portal has no fiscal codes, so name searches return similar-named companies), and interpretive guidance ("A big company being creditor or plaintiff in many cases is normal, look at the roles"). It does not say when to reach for this tool rather than company_lookup or company_financials, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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