Get Case Citation Network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the process: fetches judgment XML from TNA, parses OSCOLA citations, and returns them grouped by type, de-duplicated, and sorted. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 highly concise: a two-sentence summary followed by two sentences of detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words. Every 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 that an output schema exists (indicated by context signals), the description adequately explains the tool's behavior without needing to detail return values. It covers what the tool does, how it works, and what the output structure (grouped by type, de-duplicated, sorted) is like.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., using 'uri' field from case_law_search). The schema itself is thorough, so the description adds no further semantic value.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Map all citations within a judgment — cases cited, legislation referenced, SIs, EU law.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'citations_parse' (parses a single citation) and 'citations_resolve' (resolves citations) by focusing on the entire network of citations within a judgment.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to get all citations of a judgment), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives among siblings. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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