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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds that it returns *every* paragraph referencing the authority, with pinpoint refs and highlighted citation spans — useful completeness context. It doesn't say what happens when the edge exists but no paragraph references were extracted (empty list vs error), which keeps it below 5.

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?

Purpose sentence first, output content second, usage guidance third, then a compact Args block. No redundant restatement of the title, and every sentence adds 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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be spelled out, and the direction of the edge — the main way to misuse this tool — is made explicit. Missing only an edge-case note (no matching paragraphs, invalid/unresolved IDs) for a 2-param lookup.

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 carries the burden — and it does, disambiguating the critical direction (citing = source of edge, cited = target) for both parameters. It does not explain where canonical IDs come from (resolve_citation) or their format, leaving a gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get paragraphs in a citing case that reference a cited case) plus the exact directed edge semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from get_authority_paragraphs (all paragraphs of one authority) and get_citation_network/subgraph (structure without text).

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?

"Use after exploring a subgraph or citation network to see exactly how one case treats another" gives an explicit workflow position and names the sibling tools it follows. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g., when you only need counts or the citation is unverified), so it falls short of a full 5.

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