cases_get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the output (statistics) but does not mention if the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a statistics tool, destructiveness is unlikely, but transparency is lacking.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 16 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and outputs without superfluous 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?

The description covers the main outputs (facets, date ranges, counts) and is adequate for a tool with 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema. It could mention the query parameter, but the schema already defines it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'facet distributions (courts, legal areas, procedures)' and 'date ranges', which relate to include_facets and filters parameters. However, it does not explain each parameter individually or their formats beyond the schema.

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's purpose ('Get comprehensive statistics for a search query') and lists specific outputs (facet distributions, date ranges, aggregate counts). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like cases_search (raw results) and cases_analyze_trend (trend analysis).

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 for obtaining statistical aggregations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cases_get_court_stats for court-specific stats). No when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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