lex_semantic_case_law

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: requires a paid LexAPI plan, returns 403 on free tier, and returns relevance-scored matches with specific fields. It does not cover pagination or error handling beyond 403.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, front-loaded with the key differentiator. Every sentence adds essential information without waste.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (ECLI, court, name, full text). It lacks details on pagination, empty results, or full error handling, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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% (only min_score and filters have descriptions). The description adds no explanation for parameters; it does not clarify what 'query' or 'limit' mean beyond the schema. The description's value for parameters is minimal.

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 is an embedding-based semantic search over EU case law, finding by meaning rather than keywords. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lex_search (keyword) and lex_semantic_legislation (semantic for legislation).

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 description implies usage for conceptual searches by saying 'finds cases by meaning, not exact keywords', but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide direct alternatives. It relies on sibling tool names for differentiation.

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