search_judgments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it reveals that court values are fuzzy-matched against list_catalog()['courts'], that year filters prune row groups for efficiency, and that results are chunks rather than complete judgments. This goes well beyond the structured schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds meaning: required parameter, performance tradeoff, filtering guidance, and result shape. No filler or repetition.

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 search tool with five parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential decision context: which parameter is required, how to scope the search, why narrowing matters, and how to follow up on a hit. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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%, so the description compensates for court and year_from/year_to by explaining requiredness, fuzzy matching, and performance behavior. Query and limit are less elaborated, but their purposes are reasonably inferable from the full-text-search framing and the schema defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over one court's judgment chunks.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search tools (search_legislation, search_regulations) by focusing on judgment chunks and requiring a court.

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 explicitly says court is required, explains the fuzzy-matching behavior, warns against searching all 26 courts due to cost, and recommends using year_from/year_to when possible. It also directs the agent to get_judgment for reassembling full judgments from result chunks.

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