List the authorities on a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real coverage boundary beyond annotations: items with no project association are silently absent from results, which prevents a false 'no results means none exist' inference. It does not discuss result volume or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste. The primary scope is front-loaded and the sibling routing constraint follows, with no restatement of the title or schema.

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 filtered list tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies scope, id sourcing, and the coverage gap. The only minor omission is what the list entries contain (title, year, citation fields) and the nextOffset cursor, which are implied only indirectly via the offset parameter description.

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 100%, so sort/limit/offset/projectId semantics are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks — that projectId values must be obtained from library_overview — which is meaningful guidance for the only required parameter.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Every authority filed under one project or matter,' matching the title's verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_cases by reserving project-less authorities for that tool, so an agent can choose correctly without opening either schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent: project ids come from library_overview, and authorities filed under no project are unreachable here and must go through list_cases with project "none". Both the when-to-use source and the when-not-to-use alternative are named.

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