generate_case_citation_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states generation of a citation abstract but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though slightly lengthy in Chinese characters.

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 simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: input from search results, output for reports. It covers the main use case and the sibling tools list gives broader context. Minor lack of output format details.

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% with a clear description of 'local_id'. The description adds context that the number comes from search results and output is a citation abstract, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 clearly states the verb (generate), resource (case citation brief), and context (from search result case number). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_case_detail and search_similar_cases by focusing on generating a citation abstract for reports and opinions.

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 implies usage when a case number is available from search results and a brief citation is needed, but it lacks explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance or mention of alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps but is not explicit.

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