Search Supreme Court cases

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing the search-index lag, the fallback scan of the four most recent Terms, and the extra fields matched there (holding, question presented). It also explains why a matched row shows the matching line — a genuinely non-obvious behavior. Slightly short of 5 only because it does not describe result ordering beyond 'recent matches first' or any result-count behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then search semantics, then the index-lag caveat, then Args — a clean progression. The middle paragraph is dense but every sentence carries behavioral information; the only cost is overall length for a three-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a result row contains (Term, docket number, matched line) and how to use those values downstream. Combined with the query semantics and the recency caveat, an agent can call this tool correctly without further context.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it gives the semantic scope of 'query' with examples and alternate docket syntax ('156-orig', 'No. 156, Orig.', '22O156'), the valid range and default for 'limit' (1-50, default 10), and the meaning/default of 'include_people'. Nothing an agent needs to fill the params is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Oyez for U.S. Supreme Court cases') and immediately scopes what is matched (case name, party, docket). It also names the downstream siblings (get_case, get_oral_argument, list_term_cases), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly defines when the tool works and when it does not: name/party/docket match well, bare topics only work against titles for the four most recent Terms, and older cases require a name, party or docket. Concrete worked examples ('citizens united', '14-556') remove ambiguity about query form.

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