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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low — yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: 404 means absence from this mirror rather than nonexistence of the case, one citation can match multiple records, results are capped at 25 with a capped=true flag, and every response (including misses) carries a provenance/coverage note.

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 the core resolution behavior, then layered caveats in short declarative sentences with no filler. The closing pair "Every response carries a note... A miss carries one too." is slightly redundant and could be one sentence.

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 the burden of describing returns, and it does so well: cluster list, 25-record cap, capped flag, note field, optional attachments. What remains unspecified is the shape of each cluster record and error behavior other than 404, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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 the cite format and the include enum are already documented. The description only glosses the include options as "member opinions and parallel citations," adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Resolves") and resource (a reporter citation in the local mirror), gives the exact input format and an example (347 U.S. 483), and names the return type (matching case cluster(s)). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like citations, cluster, and treatment.

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 sets the expected use (look up a known cite in this mirror) and explicitly fences off a competing use case by stating that a resolved citation is "not a good-law, treatment or validity signal," which routes validity questions to the treatment sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative for cite-level listing (citations) or for fetching a cluster, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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