search_precedents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully names the external data sources and jurisdictional coverage (federal and Bavarian courts), but omits access requirements, rate limits, result ordering, and exhaustiveness details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause names relevant courts or sources. It is appropriately sized, though it could trade some enumeration for parameter guidance.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It says what is searched but not how to control the search or when to prefer it; the output schema covers returns, but invocation context is missing.

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% and none of the four parameters (query, court, limit, source) are described in the description. The mention of court names and database names loosely relates to the court/source parameters but gives no format, defaults, or filtering behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('authentic German court case law'), and enumerates covered courts and databases. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_decision or get_norm, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The description establishes the legal domain but leaves the agent to infer that this is for precedent lookup rather than decision retrieval or norm lookup.

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