law.case-search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the data source. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response structure, or any side effects. The agent needs more context for a safe usage.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It provides the essential purpose but omits important context. It could be expanded with usage notes or behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to specify return format, pagination, error handling, or the scope of case law coverage. The agent would lack crucial information for effective invocation.

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 only 17% (only the 'court' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics; it simply names the source. Parameters like 'q', 'filedAfter', 'filedBefore', etc., lack explanatory text, requiring the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 clearly states it searches 'US federal + state case law' using a specific source ('CourtListener / Free Law Project'), which is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like law.case-verify or law.docket-search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many legal sibling tools (e.g., law.case-verify, law.docket-search) but no mention of when this search is appropriate or when another tool should be used.

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