detect_overruled_in_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that signals are heuristic and sentence-local, not a 'still good law' verdict, that unresolved citations were not checked, and that absence of a flag is not assurance. It also tells the user to always read flagged entries and the full citing opinion.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers process and caveats in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place: the extraction/resolution pipeline is explained briefly, and the extended caution is essential given the legal-safety implications.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, how it processes the draft, what output categories to expect, and the limitations of the results. Combined with the provided output schema and complete parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its results.

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%, and the parameter descriptions for draft_text, max_cases, and scan_limit are already clear and sufficient. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, but it does not need to because the schema has already done the work.

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The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'flag cited cases that later opinions may have overruled, superseded, abrogated, or distinguished.' It clearly states the tool's scope as a proofreading pass over a draft, which differentiates it from siblings like check_treatment or verify_citation that operate on individual citations.

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 establishes when to use the tool: for proofreading a draft to detect potentially overruled or distinguished citations. It gives strong contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-citation checks or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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