cases_highlight_passages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output format (paragraph-level snippets with anchors) and query relevance, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with verb ('Extract'), no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states action and resource, the second describes output and use case.

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, description explains return type and structure. Parameters are fully covered by schema. However, with many sibling tools, some usage guidance would improve completeness. Still, it's nearly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'query' is already described). The description focuses more on output than parameters.

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 extracts relevant passages from a specific case for a query, returns paragraph-level snippets with anchors. It distinguishes from siblings like cases_get_by_ecli (full case) and cases_search (cross-case search) by focusing on compact context assembly.

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 hints at usage ('ideal for compact context assembly') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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