list_cases

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the result ordering and the meaning of the default status=open. It says nothing about result size or how the limit interacts with ordering, which for a 6-param list tool would be worth one line.

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?

One lead sentence plus a tight bullet list, front-loaded with the resource and ordering. Each line earns its place; the only minor cost is abstracting the filters as a glossary rather than prose, which is still easy to scan.

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 6-param, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers filtering and ordering adequately, but omits anything about the limit/pagination dimension even though limit is a top-level parameter with a default of 50. An agent can call it correctly, but cannot reason about result-set size.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents 5 of 6 parameters with real differentiation: ticker is an exact match while query is a substring match, status enumerates the accepted values with their meaning, and first_seen_since is scoped as an ISO date. Only limit is left undocumented (its default 50 is visible 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tracked securities class actions') plus the ordering ('soonest lead plaintiff deadline first'), which distinguishes it from get_case (single case) and search_announcements. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 bullets explain how each filter narrows results, including the useful hint that first_seen_since answers 'what is new', so usage is implied through parameter semantics. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_case/search_announcements guidance or statement of default behavior beyond the status enum.

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