cases_rerank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive (reranking) and describes the output format. However, it does not specify any potential limitations or side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and clearly communicates the core functionality without redundant 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 adequately explains inputs and outputs for a reranking tool given no output schema. It covers the main purpose and return format. A minor improvement could be stating the output is a reranked list, but it is already sufficiently clear.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Search query' and 'ECLI identifiers to rerank'). The description adds no additional semantic context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reranks cases by relevance using a query and ECLI identifiers, and mentions the output of calibrated scores with original ranks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cases_search and cases_get_similar by specifying the reranking action.

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 usage for refining an existing list of cases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like cases_search or cases_get_similar. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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