Search authorities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description still adds real detail not in them: ranking spans title/citation/tags/notes/analysis/quote text, each result carries a summary plus the matched passage, and quoted phrases are required rather than preferred. It stops short of anything about result caps beyond the schema or failure modes, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and how ranking works, then layers the query syntax, the filtering advice, and the offset/list_cases fallback. Every sentence carries operational information; none is filler or restatement of the title.

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 six-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers query syntax, filtering, pagination, and what each result contains, so an agent can call it and interpret results without guessing. Nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: multi-word and quoted-phrase query semantics, citation spelling normalization (603 U.S. 369 = 603 US 369), and the guidance to express court filters via the court parameter rather than free text. That materially improves how an agent fills query, court, and tag.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find saved authorities") and immediately qualifies the ranking behavior across named fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that results usually let you skip get_case and by routing whole-library walks to list_cases.

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?

Gives explicit when-to guidance: omit query to browse, page with offset, narrow by project/court/tag instead of putting a court name in the query, and use list_cases to walk the entire library. It also names the alternative (get_case) and when it is unnecessary, plus the when-not for wildcards.

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