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 the meaningful extras: batching is optimised server-side and capped at 100, and target_court enriches each result with binding/persuasive status. It is silent on partial-failure behavior — what happens if some citations don't resolve — which matters for a bulk call.

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 routing rule is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the Args block is compact. The 100-item limit is restated in the Args section, a small redundancy, but otherwise every line earns its place.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to explain scope and parameters, which it does. The one gap is error/partial-success semantics on a 100-item batch, which an agent would want before firing off a large request.

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 full burden and does reasonably well: it specifies citations is a list capped at 100 and that target_court is optional and changes the output by adding binding/persuasive status. It does not state the expected court-code format (the sibling list_courts implies one exists), leaving that to inference.

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 ('Resolve multiple legal citations in one call') and immediately frames the batch scope. Combined with the explicit contrast to the sibling resolve_citation, an agent can distinguish it from every other tool in the list without opening a schema.

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 a concrete when-to-use rule ('when you have a document with many citations') and names the alternative it replaces (repeated resolve_citation calls). The 100-item ceiling also tells the agent when this tool stops being sufficient.

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