legal-search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the data source (CourtListener) and returns fields, but it does not disclose important behaviors like rate limits, indexing delays, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks detail beyond basic functionality.

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 three concise sentences: first states the core function, second lists return fields, third suggests use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (multiple filters, legal search), the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., result ordering, pagination, coverage date range, or limitations). The schema provides parameter details, but the description could better complement it by explaining how filters interact or what 'text snippet' means.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions are good, but the description mentions a 'judge name' filter which is not present in the input schema. This creates confusion about what filters are actually available. Otherwise, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes.

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 it searches US court opinions via CourtListener, specifies the court coverage (SCOTUS, federal circuits, district courts, state courts), and lists returned fields. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are legal search tools.

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 lists explicit use cases such as legal research, contract risk analysis, precedent lookup, and regulatory compliance. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, which would be helpful in a toolset with many search-like tools.

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