opinion_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the return fields (case name, court, date, citations, docket number, snippet, citation count, link) and notes the token requirement for rate limits. No destructive actions or contradictions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing key return fields. It could use slight structuring, but it is efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and explains pagination and ordering. It covers essential behaviors for a 7-parameter search tool, though error handling is omitted.

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%. The description adds valuable context like example queries for 'q', pagination details for 'limit' and 'cursor', and sorting options, going beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Full-text search of U.S. case law / court opinions' with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('opinions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like case_detail and citation_lookup by focusing on open-ended text queries.

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 notes it works without a token but recommends setting COURTLISTENER_API_TOKEN for higher rate limits, offering clear context. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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