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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful traits: output is extractive, never paraphrased, and every holding is anchored to a paragraph with an official-text pointer. It omits, however, what happens when a citation cannot be resolved, whether the tool errors or returns empty, and whether pagination or size limits apply to large judgments.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with an em-dash qualifier; the core operation and output nature arrive immediately. The trailing clause 'the exact judicial language counsel can read in court' partially restates 'never paraphrased', a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough for correct invocation: what is returned, that it is excerpted rather than summarized, and the citation requirement is covered by the schema. Missing edge-case behavior (unresolvable citation, non-SC input) is the only real gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further detail about the optional 'issue' parameter's prioritization behavior or accepted citation formats beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Return') and a precisely characterized resource ('extractive, paragraph-anchored ratio decidendi and headnotes of a Supreme Court case'), including the scope constraint (Supreme Court cases only). The operation is unmistakably distinct from siblings like check_treatment or resolve_citation, which perform verification and mapping rather than content retrieval.

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 intended use is implied by phrases like 'the exact judicial language counsel can read in court', which signals a research/argument-support scenario. However, it never states when to use this versus search_cases (to find the case first) or check_treatment (to verify it is still good law), nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing a resolved citation.

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