find_cited_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the function without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, error handling, or any prerequisites, leaving a transparency gap.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core function and then provide a practical use case. No unnecessary words or duplication.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and its purpose, while the output schema covers return structure. It could have added more about prerequisite data, but it's not necessary for basic 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 100%, and the parameter 'opinion_id' is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing that it's about a specific opinion, so it meets the baseline.

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 the action ('Find cases that a specific opinion cites') and the resource, with the parenthetical clarifying the direction ('what cases did this ruling rely on?'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool find_citing_cases, which would find cases citing the opinion.

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 provides clear usage context with 'Use this to understand the legal foundation of a decision,' which tells the agent when to apply the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is specific enough.

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