find_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses 'No PACER cost' and the API call pricing for keyword search, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, ordering, or potential failure modes, so it is decent but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then explains inputs, output, cost, and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the inclusion of concrete examples improves clarity without unnecessary verbosity.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, input types, the critical output (court_code + case_number), and cost behavior. It does not describe the full response structure or pagination details, but for a discovery tool, this is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds examples for the query parameter (e.g., 'Sbarro', '1:14-bk') and clarifies query types. However, it adds no information about page_size, page_number, or other parameters beyond the schema, leaving some gaps that are not fully compensated.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Discover' and specifies the target ('federal court cases you don't have the court+number for yet'). It clearly states the resource and distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing it provides court_code + case_number needed by all other tools, which is unique among the listed tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you don't have the court+number yet') and notes the output is a prerequisite for other tools. A cost caveat for keyword search is also given, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for other scenarios, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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