law.case-verify

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States verification against CourtListener corpus but does not disclose output format, what happens with invalid citations, or any side effects. Lacks detail on return structure or error handling.

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 fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word 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?

Simple tool with one param and no output schema. Description explains what it does but omits output format and behavior for invalid citations. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool without additional context.

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?

Single parameter 'text' is well-described in schema (100% coverage). Tool description adds context about anti-hallucination but does not add semantic details beyond 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?

Clear verb 'Verify' and specific resource 'US legal citations in text' against CourtListener corpus, with anti-hallucination context. Distinguishes from sibling law.case-search which searches cases, not verifies citations.

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?

States use case as 'Anti-hallucination check before quoting case law', implying when to use. However, does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives like law.case-search for finding cases.

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