Search Cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'neutral citation fallbacks,' which adds some context about search behavior, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key feature ('neutral citation fallbacks'). It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.

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?

The description adds no specific information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'jurisdiction' enums or 'query' requirements. With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is low, but the description doesn't compensate by detailing parameter meanings or usage. However, it implies the tool handles Australian case law, which loosely relates to the 'jurisdiction' parameter, offering minimal added value.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Australian case law'), making the purpose understandable. It adds specificity with 'with neutral citation fallbacks,' which distinguishes it from generic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_legislation,' which might handle similar queries but for different legal resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools 'fetch_document_text' or 'search_legislation.' It mentions 'neutral citation fallbacks,' which hints at a specific use case, but doesn't clarify scenarios where this is preferred or required, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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