find_by_case_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one non-obvious domain trait — that case numbers are not globally unique and collide across courts — but says nothing about result limits, behavior on zero matches, or whether multiple decisions can be returned. An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the core operation and format come first, followed by the one caveat that matters. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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 3-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the key input (case number format) and the court caveat, but omits the semantics of limit and the outcome when multiple courts or multiple decisions match. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the required case_number format and the meaning/recommendation of court, which is genuine added value, but the third parameter (limit, default 10) is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb+resource (find a decision by case number) and pins down the exact expected format with two concrete examples ('20 C 98/2026', '8 Co 85/2026'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like search_decisions or get_decision.

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?

It gives a useful conditional hint ('the same case number exists at multiple courts', so supply court), which is implied guidance for parameter choice, but it never says when to prefer this tool over search_decisions or get_decision, nor what happens if court is omitted or no match is found.

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