INSC.ONE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantive behavior: automatic extraction across named reporter series, treatment-status verification, explicit flagging of OVERRULED or superseded authorities, a Dawoodi Bohra bench-strength hierarchy check, and production of tactical counter-arguments. What it does not cover is whether the audit is read-only, how long a full-brief audit takes, or any limits on input size.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and scope before listing capabilities, so the most important information comes first. The capability list is dense but each clause names a distinct behavior rather than padding.

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 multi-step audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately sketches what comes back — extracted citations, current treatment status, overruled/superseded flags, bench-strength analysis, and counter-arguments. The exact response structure and result ordering are left unspecified, which is the main remaining 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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description hints at the purpose of focus_issue through the phrase 'tactical counter-arguments,' but never states that the optional parameter steers that analysis, and adds no format or content guidance for the text parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Audit an entire legal brief, petition, or opponent argument for citation accuracy and Article 141 binding precedent validity' — and enumerates the concrete outputs (extraction, treatment verification, bench-strength check, counter-arguments). The whole-document scope implicitly separates it from single-citation siblings like check_treatment and resolve_citation, but it never names those alternatives.

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 opening clause identifies the applicable input types (brief, petition, opponent argument), which implies when to reach for this tool rather than a single-citation lookup. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling tools, and no stated prerequisite that the input must already contain citations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful legal context by naming treatment categories and the Dawoodi Bohra bench-strength hierarchy, but it does not disclose permissions, read-only guarantees, data freshness, return format, or how unresolvable citations are handled.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage directive.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough context to understand what is checked and when to call it. It could be more complete by describing the return shape or how treatment findings are reported, but the essential invocation guidance is present.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage, with the schema explaining that it accepts an 'INSC neutral citation or any resolvable reference.' The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a cited Supreme Court authority is still good law.' It enumerates the treatment outcomes (overruled, distinguished, affected by a larger bench) and is clearly distinct from sibling citation-formatting, resolution, and search tools.

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?

It gives an explicit usage context: 'Run this before including any authority in a draft or filing.' This tells the agent exactly when the tool is relevant. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, 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.

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the returned string (INSC-first, optional parallel forms, registry-style footnote). It says nothing about failure behavior — what happens when the citation is not resolvable, or whether the tool errors or degrades — which is the main behavioral gap for a transformation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the output description, with no filler. Minor overlap between 'ready-to-paste' and 'standardize citations in drafts' keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 simple two-parameter formatting tool this covers what the output looks like and the intended setting. It leaves unresolved how non-INSC or ambiguous references are handled, which matters because the 'citation' parameter explicitly accepts 'any resolvable reference'.

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 50%: 'citation' is documented in the schema, while 'style' is undocumented beyond its enum values. The description's mention of optional parallel SCC/AIR/SCR/MANU forms loosely maps to 'full_parallel', but it never ties the style options to the enum names, so it adds only partial meaning.

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: 'Return a ready-to-paste citation string' leading with the INSC neutral citation, with optional parallel forms and footnote. That is clearly distinct from resolve_citation, check_treatment, and get_ratio in kind, though the description never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Provides a usage context ('to standardize citations in drafts and pleadings'), which implies when to reach for it. It does not say when not to use it, nor how it relates to resolve_citation for unresolvable references, so an agent must infer the boundary between resolving and formatting.

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

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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (parallel citations, bench, decision date, e-SCR link, treatment status) which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not say what happens when a reference cannot be resolved or when the input is ambiguous across multiple cases, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the input formats and the output payload, the second front-loads the precedence rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it names inputs, outputs, and priority. The missing piece is failure/ambiguity behavior (unresolvable citations, multiple matches), which matters for a fuzzy free-text resolver.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by signaling that arbitrary free text is in scope ('or free text'), which broadens the agent's understanding of what the query string may contain beyond the concrete examples in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve any Indian Supreme Court reference ... to the canonical INSC neutral citation'. It enumerates the accepted input formats (INSC, SCC, AIR, MANU, party name + year, free text) and the output payload, which lets an agent distinguish it from format_citation and search_cases without opening any 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?

'Use this first for any citation; always prefer and return the INSC form' is an explicit routing directive that establishes priority over sibling tools. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. when to call search_cases for discovery or format_citation for reformatting an already-canonical cite), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses output shape (ranked cases with INSC citations, one-line holdings, treatment signals) and ranking behavior, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, result caps, or that it is a read-only operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed immediately by the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no boilerplate.

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?

The description covers what the tool searches and roughly what it returns, which is reasonable for a simple two-parameter search. But with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented limit parameter, it is not fully sufficient for an agent to know result caps or when to pivot to sibling tools.

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 50%: the query parameter is documented in the schema, and the description adds that it accepts natural-language issues, keywords, or legal propositions, which is meaningful. However, the limit parameter (default 5, max 15) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search the insc.one Supreme Court index') and enumerates the accepted query modes (natural-language issue, keyword, legal proposition). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_treatment or get_ratio, though the search scope makes it naturally distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_treatment, get_ratio, or resolve_citation, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovery while siblings handle follow-up operations.

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