Get a case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns metadata and the first passages of the decision, which is useful contextual behavior. No contradictions or additional behavioral details like pagination, which is handled by the output schema and limit parameter.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the resource and key method (citation). It includes a concrete example and mentions the output format, with no extraneous words.

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 an output schema exists (which would detail metadata and passages), the description provides sufficient information to call the tool correctly: it names the required parameter (citation), explains the return content, and the limit parameter is defined in the schema. Annotations cover safety. 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 description coverage is 100%, with both citation and limit already documented in the input schema (including the example and default). The description does not add extra parameter semantics; it merely reinforces the citation format. The high coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool returns a case by citation, with metadata and decision passages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jurisprudence (search-based) and get_provision (specific provision), so an agent can accurately select it when a citation is known.

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 citation is available, but does not explicitly contrast with search tools or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance on alternatives, though the mention of 'by citation' provides some context. This is functional but not explicit.

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