get_case_rulings

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

Given no annotations, the description transparently discloses that the tool is pending with a planned date and a fallback URL. It explains the current behavior (returns coverage:pending) and future expectations, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its limitations.

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 somewhat verbose but front-loaded with the 'PENDING' status and date. The second sentence could be shortened, but the info about planned_at and fallback URL is useful. Overall adequate but not concise.

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?

Despite lacking parameter details, the description covers the tool's current state, future date, and fallback mechanism. An output schema is present (not shown but noted), which may compensate, but for now the agent lacks full context on input semantics. The description is moderately complete for a pending 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?

The schema has one parameter 'query' with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what 'query' expects or how it affects results. The agent has no guidance on whether to pass a case number, topic, or other input.

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 returns Federal and California appellate court rulings on specific land-use topics. The scope is well-defined, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_code_section or lookup_parcel by focusing on case law rather than municipal code or parcel data.

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 does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool is pending and returns a placeholder, but provides no guidance on when it should be invoked or what to do instead (e.g., use the fallback URL).

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