Search cases

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens with no filters. It is consistent with the annotations but offers no extra transparency beyond them.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and filters, the second routes to the key alternative. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with six optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema gives sufficient information to select and invoke the tool. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance to use tribeunal_get_case for direct case retrieval, which would make the context fully complete.

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?

The input schema is fully described (100% coverage), including enums with status meanings, defaults, and constraints. The description only repeats filter dimensions already present in the schema, adding no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Find existing cases') and identifies the searchable resources and filter dimensions (query, status, type, tags). It distinguishes the tool from tribeunal_create_case, but it does not explicitly contrast it with tribeunal_get_case, a sibling that could also serve 'look up an existing case' intents.

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 'when to use' guidance ('only when the user wants to look up or reference an existing case') and names the alternative for creating new cases (tribeunal_create_case). It does not mention using tribeunal_get_case for retrieving a specific known case, so the routing guidance is good but incomplete.

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