Search Cases

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses core behaviors: searches case law, lists jurisdictions, methods, sorting, and pagination. Does not mention authentication or rate limits, but search is typically read-only.

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?

Single informative paragraph with no wasted words. Starts with purpose, then lists options in a structured manner. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, pagination. Could mention return format or give an example, but given no output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, but description adds significant meaning: explains each method (e.g., 'title (case names only)', 'phrase (exact match)') and how offset works for pagination. Goes beyond schema enumeration.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Search' and specific resource 'Australian and New Zealand case law'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_citing_cases by focusing on general case law search.

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?

Provides explicit allowed values for jurisdiction, method, sorting, and mentions pagination. Gives clear guidance on how to structure queries but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like search_citing_cases.

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