Get Case Citations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that the API only supports English for this endpoint, with French requests falling back to English. This is beyond what annotations convey and helps set expectations.

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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds a critical language constraint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key limitation. Although there is no output schema, the nature of citation data is self-explanatory, and the added language note addresses a potential edge case. A bit more detail on response structure would elevate it further, but current coverage is solid.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including enums and examples. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Get citation information for a case' and enumerates the three types of data (what it cites, what cites it, legislation referenced), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_case or get_legislation by focusing solely on citation data.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool—when citation data is needed—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. This is clear guidance without exclusions, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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