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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'FORWARD' traversal direction, the 'in-corpus' constraint, and the idea that a judgment's citations form a curated map of established authority. It doesn't contradict 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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains workflow, and the third gives a practical usage tip. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and has no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and complementary tools. It lacks details on pagination (limit/offset) and output format, but an output schema is present, so return values are presumably covered there. The 'in-corpus' scope and forward direction are clearly conveyed, making it reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%: the description provides no guidance on parameters. It never mentions case_id, limit, offset, or response_format. The schema itself only has a minimal description for case_id ('Numeric judgment id'), so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 ('list') and resource ('in-corpus cases that THIS judgment cites'), clearly stating the forward direction of the citation graph. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool caselaw_get_cited_by, which traverses backward.

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 explicitly names the complementary tool (caselaw_get_cited_by) and explains when to use it together to traverse the citation graph in both directions. It also provides practical guidance on when this tool is most useful (recent judgments), giving clear context for selection.

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