Search Citing Cases (Citator)

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses several behavioral traits: it requires JADE_SESSION_COOKIE, returns specific fields (neutral citations, case names, jade.io URLs, total count), and notes results are a sample (20-30) of the full set. This provides good transparency beyond the schema.

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: first sentence states purpose, second states technical requirement, third describes output. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, sampling behavior, and a prerequisite. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return values. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but for a search tool with moderate complexity, this is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with examples and enums. The description adds example values for 'caseName' and clarifies the default format, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is high (100%), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find cases that cite a given case on jade.io.' It specifies the resource (cases citing a given case), action (find), and platform, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_cases' which searches for cases generally.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires JADE_SESSION_COOKIE' and the engine used, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but lacks comparative context.

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