list_reporter_abbreviations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'common' abbreviations, implying a curated, non-exhaustive scope, but it does not disclose output format, whether the list is static or generated, or any potential edge cases. Since this is a read-only list operation, the lack of mutation risk lowers the severity, but the description remains minimal in behavioral detail.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides a concrete example of when to use it. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed and why it is useful. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to explain return values. The only minor gap is not clarifying whether 'common' means limited to U.S. federal reporters or includes state/other reporters, but this is not critical given the example citations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to document. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('common legal reporter abbreviations') and what it provides ('which courts they cover'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_legal_citations, which focuses on parsing citation strings, and list_available_courts, which lists courts rather than abbreviations.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for understanding citations like...' This provides clear context for when an agent would want to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as suggesting parse_legal_citations for more detailed citation analysis.

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