search_authoritative_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool prioritizes authoritative sources and annotates results with authority type and citation value. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or handling of edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes key details about prioritization and annotations. Every phrase serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks details on expected output format, pagination, or limitations. It hints at output annotations but is not fully comprehensive for a complex search tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level purpose. No parameter-specific elaboration is given.

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 it retrieves authoritative cases and judicial rules, prioritizing specific high-level sources like the Supreme Court and annotates authority type and citation value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'filter_cases' or 'search_similar_cases', which lack this focus.

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 the tool is for authoritative case and rule search from specific sources. While it provides clear context for when to use it, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., for general search).

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