Søk i EMD-praksis

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 substantial behavioral context: the default search is against Norway, results are in English, `text` matches decisions that cite a case, and `importance: 2` filters to principal judgments. It does not describe result shape, pagination behavior, or rate limits, but for a search tool it is unusually transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core search capability and then provides useful disambiguation. The paragraph about Norwegian law and the free-source situation is somewhat verbose but serves the important purpose of preventing the agent from treating this as domestic Norwegian case law. Each section earns its place, though a bit of trimming would be possible.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 12 parameters, the description is quite complete: it explains defaults, source, key parameter semantics, and a common misuse trap. It does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, but the rich parameter guidance and disambiguation make it sufficient for most invocation scenarios.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for several parameters: `respondent` accepts ISO codes or null, `importance` means 'level or higher', `text` searches full text including citing decisions, and `caseName` is for finding a specific case. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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: search decisions from the European Court of Human Rights via the open HUDOC database. It clearly distinguishes this from Norwegian domestic case law, which helps an agent avoid confusion. The scope and default behavior are immediately clear.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use `caseName`/`appNo` versus `text`, and warns that `text` is the wrong tool for locating a specific case. It also explains that this is not Norwegian case law and that ECHR case law is openly available. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the routing advice within the tool is strong.

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