search_legal_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that the service is free and requires no API key, specifies the data source (CourtListener), lists what fields are returned, and explains the purchase mechanism via get_record. Minor gaps like rate limits or pagination are not mentioned, but the description still offers substantial transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the key benefit (FREE, no key), explains the scope, lists return fields, and then provides usage examples in the Args section. There is no redundant information, and each sentence adds value.

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 the simple input (one query string) and lack of an output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, data scope, return fields, cost implications, and a clear path to obtain fuller results. An agent can confidently decide when and how to invoke this 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?

Although the input schema only shows a required 'query' string, the description elaborates with examples ('"miranda arizona"' or '"ninth circuit qualified immunity"') and clarifies that it accepts keyword(s). This adds meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't cover advanced query syntax, but for a single free-text parameter, this is sufficient.

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 ('Search') and clearly defines the resource: 1.55 million+ US federal court opinions, including SCOTUS and appellate circuits, plus SEC litigation releases. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by noting that search_regulations_law covers regulations, statutes, and the Federal Register, thus clarifying its own scope.

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 states clear use cases: 'For precedent checks, citation lookup, and enforcement history.' It also provides an explicit exclusion: regulations and statutes are handled by search_regulations_law. Additionally, it directs users to call get_record for full opinions, which helps in selecting the appropriate tool in the workflow.

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