get_cited_authorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining that in-corpus ND opinions are resolved to name/date/oid while others receive a source URL, and that official-source links are included where available. It does not address behavior for invalid citations or empty results, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 sentences: a compact purpose statement followed by a detailed but efficient breakdown of result types. The most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded, and every sentence adds substantive value without redundancy.

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 one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It explains the categories returned and the link-resolution behavior. It is slightly thin on error/unresolved-citation behavior, but that is not a critical gap for a read-only lookup 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 single parameter citation has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the citation identifies a case and that the tool maps authorities around it, but it does not add format or syntax details 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 opens with 'Outbound authorities a case relies on, grouped by type,' which names the exact resource and scope. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_citing_opinions (which would be inbound) and lookup_authority (which looks up a single authority). The follow-up details further specify what is returned: cited cases, statutes, court rules, constitutional provisions, and regulations.

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 word 'outbound' and the phrase 'authority graph around a case' make the intended use clear: retrieve the authorities a given opinion relies on. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the directional framing distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_citing_opinions without being misleading.

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