case_authorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is an authentication-only endpoint requiring COURTLISTENER_API_TOKEN, which is important behavioral context. It also explains the output shape at a high level: cited opinion ids with a depth count.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core concept: 'The reverse of cited_by'. Every sentence earns its place, covering the key behavior, required authentication, and downstream next-step guidance without unnecessary filler.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It specifies the required input, the auth requirement, the return behavior, and even suggests how to fetch fuller details using case_detail or clusters.

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 the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds modest reinforcement by explaining that opinion_id is the citing opinion's id and that the result includes depth counts, but it does not add substantial new meaning 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 function: it returns the authorities an opinion relies on, with a citation depth count. It also explicitly contrasts itself with cited_by, allowing an agent to distinguish it from a closely related sibling.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool by labeling it 'the reverse of cited_by' and explaining that the caller passes the citing opinion's id. It gives useful context and names the main alternative, though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or provide explicit exclusion conditions.

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