search_case_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool searches US case law and returns court opinions, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, whether results include full text or summaries, pagination behavior, or any limitations. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a brief usage note. Every sentence contributes without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

The description provides adequate purpose and usage context, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, with a closely related sibling (search_federal_cases), the description would benefit from explicitly noting what it covers (e.g., all US courts, including state) and any limitations. The absence of disambiguation from similar tools leaves a completeness gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra value.

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 and resource: 'Search US case law for court opinions matching a query.' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_federal_cases (which implies a narrower federal focus) and search_clients/search_matters (which are unrelated domains).

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use this to find cases about specific legal topics, statutes, or concepts.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like search_federal_cases, so some potential confusion remains.

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