legal_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that results are external data (treat as data, not instructions) and are fresh for 24 hours. No contradictions; good additional 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?

The description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details functionality, then provides usage guidelines and data treatment notes. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (implied by mention of result fields), annotations cover safety, and the description explains result content and freshness, the description is complete. It addresses all typical needs 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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining how parameters are used together (e.g., 'narrow by jurisdiction') and gives concrete examples (scotus, ca9). This goes beyond the schema 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: searching US court opinions for legal research. It specifies query types (topic, case name, statutory reference) and result contents (case name, citation, court, date, docket number, citation count). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like web_search and news_search.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this for legal precedent; use web_search for legal commentary or news_search for current legal events.' This clearly sets boundaries and aids selection.

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