search_emsal_detailed_decisions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, and repeatable operations. The description doesn't contradict these and adds context by specifying 'UYAP precedent decisions (Emsal)' and 'lower court decisions and case law', which helps clarify the domain. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (implied by page_number parameter), though annotations cover core safety.

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 two short sentences with zero waste: 'Use this when searching UYAP precedent decisions (Emsal). For lower court decisions and case law.' It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently conveys key context. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, search functionality) and rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) plus an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the domain (UYAP precedent decisions) and scope (lower court decisions, case law), which adds value beyond structured fields. However, it could better differentiate from siblings or explain result formats, though the output schema mitigates this.

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 100%, with all 15 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., keyword, dates, sorting). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool is for 'searching UYAP precedent decisions (Emsal)' and mentions 'lower court decisions and case law', which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'detailed decisions' means compared to other search tools (e.g., search_anayasa_unified, search_bddk_decisions), and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_emsal_document_markdown' (implied sibling). The verb 'search' is clear but the resource scope is vague.

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 includes 'Use this when searching UYAP precedent decisions (Emsal). For lower court decisions and case law.', which gives some context but is minimal. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_anayasa_unified for constitutional decisions), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but insufficient for clear decision-making among many sibling tools.

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