Citations made by a case

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that unresolved citations are deliberately omitted and that the citation graph is the source, which are useful behavioral traits not visible in the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the core action and scope, and the second adds a key boundary. All content earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines what is returned, where the data comes from, and what is excluded. No critical behavior 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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents caseCitation and limit. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond reaffirming the domain of citations, which matches the baseline score 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 uses the specific action 'List every citation a case makes' and specifies the resource as statutes and other cases recorded in the citation graph. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like related_laws or show_cross_references.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer the tool is for retrieving citations made by a case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named, so an agent may need external context to distinguish it from related_cases or show_cross_references.

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