caselaw_about

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a metadata query (not a data mutation) and notes it's 'live SAOS,' which signals freshness of the data source, but doesn't describe caching behavior, latency expectations, or what 'SAOS' stands for. The 'live' qualifier adds some transparency value.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add usage guidance. 'Live SAOS' is a bit cryptic/technical without expansion, but the overall text is tight with no wasted words.

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 0-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what information is returned (coverage, provenance, freshness) and when to call it. It would benefit from listing what specific data structures or fields are returned, but given the tool's simplicity, it's reasonably complete.

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 0 parameters, so the schema (which is empty) provides nothing. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior instead.

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 has a specific verb+resource (returns metadata, provenance, and freshness of case-law server) and clearly states it covers quality attributes rather than search results. It distinguishes from siblings like search_case_law and get_judgment which operate on content, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 gives clear context: 'Call to understand coverage and basis before relying on results.' This implies usage as a precondition/prerequisite before other case-law operations, which is useful guidance. It doesn't explicitly list when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the 'before relying on results' framing clearly scopes its purpose.

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