cases_extract_entities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it uses regex for Dutch legal text, but does not explain safety (e.g., read-only vs mutation), permissions, failure modes, or limitations. Critical context for a tool that processes case data is missing.

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 and front-loads the purpose, followed by a key detail about regex and language. Every sentence adds value, and no words are wasted.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It only lists entity types but not how they are returned (e.g., list, map). Does not mention pagination, ordering, or error conditions. Incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.

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 schema already describes both parameters (ECLI identifier, entity types) with 100% coverage. The description adds example entity types ('cited cases, legal articles, monetary amounts, dates, and parties'), providing useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the expected format for entity_types values.

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 verb 'extract entities from a case' and specifies the types of entities (cited cases, legal articles, monetary amounts, dates, parties). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cases_get_citations' and 'cases_get_by_ecli' which have different purposes.

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 mentions it uses regex for Dutch legal text, implying it's for Dutch cases, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'cases_get_citations' or 'cases_get_by_ecli'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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