search_saiketsu

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

Without annotations, description carries burden. It discloses caching behavior and initial slowness, which is helpful. However, it does not confirm read-only nature, any required permissions, or side effects. The description adds value but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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?

Description is very concise: three short sentences covering purpose, search targets, AND logic, and performance note. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose. Efficient.

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 no output schema, description should clarify return format or contents. It does not specify what is returned (e.g., list of decisions with titles, dates). Also, it doesn't mention handling of no results or errors. Missing completeness for a search tool.

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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining search targets, AND logic for keyword, and providing usage hints for limit, latest, and tax_type. This enriches parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches published tax court decisions by keyword, specifies search targets (summary text and category names) and AND logic, and distinguishes from siblings like list_saiketsu (browsing without search) and search_law (searching laws).

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?

Provides context on when to use this tool: for keyword search on saiketsu. Mentions performance hint (use 'latest' for speed) and initial delay. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_saiketsu or search_law, but the sibling context implies differentiation. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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