cases_expand_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool enriches queries with legal terms and returns structured terms, but it does not explain the internal process, idempotency, or whether external resources are used. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not detailed.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word contributes meaning. No unnecessary information.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and the return. However, it could clarify the output format (e.g., JSON structure) and explicitly state the language requirement (Dutch).

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?

The single parameter 'query' is described in the schema as 'Raw user question' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as expected language or format. Baseline 3 applies as schema covers the parameter.

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 expands a user query with Dutch legal synonyms, abbreviations, entities, and temporal hints, and specifies the return of structured must/should terms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cases_search or cases_extract_entities.

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 use before search for better retrieval but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cases_rerank or cases_search_by_article. There are no when-not-to-use notes or prerequisites mentioned.

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