Resolve Statute Citation

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the tool does not mutate anything. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the output includes a confirmed exact section, official source link, and act_id. It does not disclose failure behavior like unresolved citations, but the parameter schema and output schema help fill that gap.

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 just two sentences, with the core action and output front-loaded and the usage guidance in a compact second sentence. Every part earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating 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?

Given the full parameter schema coverage, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Critical semantics like jurisdiction constraints are already covered in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has rich examples and explanations, including the 'constraint, not a hint' nuance for state and corpusType. The description itself adds little parametric meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('resolve') and a specific resource (Bluebook citation strings), and specifies the outcome: exact section, confirmed, with an official source link and act_id. It distinguishes from search-style tools by saying it is for citations rather than questions, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling resolve_statute_citations_batch.

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 explicitly says to use this tool whenever the user provides a citation rather than a question, and explains it is more reliable than searching for citation text. This gives clear usage context, though it does not mention exclusions or the batch sibling as an alternative.

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