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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it discloses the two possible outcomes (exact match vs disambiguation list) and the side effect that an exact case-law match automatically opens the interactive case viewer. That side effect is the kind of thing an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, followed by supported inputs and return behavior. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place by showing concrete example strings.

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 carries return-value burden and does so at a coarse level (exact record vs disambiguation candidates), plus it flags the case-viewer side effect. It stops short of describing what a disambiguation candidate contains or ranking behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% and the single 'citation' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description's Args block supplies both the semantic ('citation string') and concrete examples across formats (neutral citation, statute name). This compensates well for the schema gap, though it omits format edge cases such as pinpoints.

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 (resolve) and resource (a legal citation) plus what comes back (full authority record). It clearly delimits scope by listing accepted formats, which separates it from extraction/search tools, though it never names a sibling like resolve_citations_bulk or autocomplete_citations.

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?

Gives clear context for use: any citation format, whole or partial names, and the outcome is either an exact match or disambiguation candidates. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to the bulk/autocomplete alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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