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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable, non-obvious details: treatment is always null, classification is intentionally unbuilt work, and known-missing cases return known_missing with attestations rather than a 404. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot provide.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first clause)Skip and every subsequent sentence addresses a meaningful caveat or edge case an agent needs to know. There is no padding or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides enough about the return shape: statute provisions with how often each is cited, relied-upon decisions, always-null treatment, and the known_missing representation. For a tool with one parameter and clear semantics, this is 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, documenting that case accepts a juris doknr, ECLI, or decision URL as returned by search. The description does not add additional parameter-level nuance, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource ('one decision'), the direction of the edges ('outgoing'), and the two kinds of results (statute provisions with citation counts, and relied-upon decisions). It also points to listCasePassages as the sibling to use for reading actual passage text, which helps an agent distinguish this tool from that one.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect what one decision cites)Skip or relies on with weighting. It also explicitly tells the agent to use listCasePassages when it needs to read the citing passage itself, which is an alternative. It does not spell out exclusions such as 'do not use this for incoming citations,' though the word 'outgoing' implies the boundary.

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