case_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 'disposition' and 'syllabus_points' are derived/heuristic and should be verified, and that synthetic parallel cites are listed separately. It could also state read-only behavior, but the data-quality caveats are valuable.

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, opening with the tool's role and then listing return fields in a structured way. The caveat about derived fields is placed at the end without bloat.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main return fields and important caveats. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer sibling tools, but overall it gives enough context for an agent 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 description already fully covers the single 'citation' parameter as 'A citation or case name identifying the opinion.' The tool description adds no additional syntax or interpretation details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'bench-memo front matter for a case' and enumerates specific fields (caption, parallel cites, date, panel, disposition, etc.). This distinguishes it from full-text and search-oriented sibling 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?

The phrase 'One-call bench-memo front matter' gives clear context: use this when you need consolidated case summary data in a single call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is strongly implied.

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