Cases citing the same laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the matching logic ('at least one of the same statutes') and the notion of a citation neighborhood, going beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the key input ('Given a case citation'), and every clause adds information. There is no redundant repetition of the title or obvious filler.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the input, the matching behavior, and the practical purpose, while annotations cover idempotency and safety. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents caseCitation and limit well. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond restating that the input is a case citation, but it does reinforce the core parameter's role. This meets the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.

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 a specific verb ('find') and resource ('other cases in the corpus that cite at least one of the same statutes'), with a concrete scope ('shared citation neighborhoods'). This distinguishes it from likely siblings like related_laws, which would focus on statutes rather than cases.

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 gives clear context: input is a case citation, and the use case is identifying lines of jurisprudence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is enough for an agent to recognize the primary scenario.

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