Cari yurisprudensi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying source status is provided per court and that partial failures are visible, which helps an agent interpret incomplete responses. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and target courts. It avoids filler, though 'kegagalan parsial yang terlihat' is awkwardly phrased and slightly reduces clarity.

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 an output schema and supportive annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It conveys the core domain and partial-failure visibility, yet it leaves sibling selection and pageSize/query semantics to inference, which is a meaningful gap given the overlapping sibling tools.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only hints at the 'court' parameter by naming MA/MK and implies a query through 'Cari'; pageSize and query constraints are entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cari' = search) and names the resource ('putusan MA dan MK' = Supreme Court and Constitutional Court decisions), so an agent can identify this as a jurisprudence-search tool. It also adds scope via 'status sumber per pengadilan', though the phrase 'kegagalan parsial yang terlihat' is somewhat ambiguous and it does not explicitly contrast with search_legal_sources.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as search_legal_sources or get_source_status. The distinctive features ('per pengadilan', 'kegagalan parsial yang terlihat') are implied rather than stated as selection criteria.

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