resolve_statute_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the credit cost, charging even on unresolved citations, refund policy for server errors, the pinpoint subsection behavior, and the exact output semantics for resolved vs. unresolved cases (resolved false, section null, treat as unverified not current). It also notes that the section metadata follows another endpoint's shape, giving a complete behavioral picture.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, cost warning, examples in a bulleted list, and clear explanation of resolved/unresolved behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information - no fluff. The use of bold for key terms and a straightforward layout makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers cost, input formats, output fields (resolved, section, subsection), interpretation of unresolved results, and even cross-references the section metadata shape. There's a clear understanding of what the caller receives and how to act on it, leaving little to guess.

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 already covers the cite parameter at 100% with an example and description. The tool description adds extra value by listing multiple citation formats (federal, regulation, state) and explaining how pinpoint subsections are treated, which goes beyond the schema's basic string description. This merits a score above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a Bluebook citation string to the exact section it names'. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing confirmation against the corpus and providing an official source link. The examples clarify the exact input scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides concrete examples of when to use the tool (federal statutes, regulations, state statutes) and explicitly mentions the use case of verifying LLM-produced citations. It does not name sibling alternatives but clearly implies this is for resolving an existing citation rather than searching. Minor room for improvement in explicitly stating when not to use it.

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