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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose several useful behavioral traits: it searches Court decisions only, returns matching decisions with legal rules, and does not disclose private graph propositions or counsel research. It also states credential and cost. However, it omits search behavior details such as ranking, result limits, pagination, or error handling.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before adding scope exclusions and access details. The first-person framing is slightly informal but still concise and each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It explains the return type and exclusions, but leaves the query parameter semantics and search-result mechanics underspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema has one required parameter, query, with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly suggests the query is a description of the user’s problem and does not explain expected query content, syntax, or matching behavior.

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: searching the Court’s decisions and returning matching decisions plus the legal rule stated by each. It also distinguishes the scope by excluding private graph propositions and counsel research, though it does not name alternative tools such as ask_reports or list_judgments.

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 opening user-intent sentence implies when to use it: to find earlier decisions about a similar problem. The exclusions clarify what this tool does not cover, but no explicit alternative tools or conditions for choosing them are provided.

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