List Cases

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by stating that it returns case titles, citations, and IDs, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or how filters and offset/resultCount affect results. With read-only safety already covered by annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and return value, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 list endpoint with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only minimal return-value information and no overview of pagination or filter combinations. However, the schema's 100% parameter descriptions and readOnlyHint annotation compensate for some gaps. It is minimally adequate but could benefit from mentioning how to page through results and the role of list_case_databases.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that decisions come from a specific database, which aligns with the databaseId parameter. 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('decisions from a caselaw database'), and it mentions the returned fields (titles, citations, IDs). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_case or list_legislation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative as in the high-calibration example.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_case, get_case_citations, or list_case_databases. The phrase 'specific caselaw database' hints that a databaseId is needed, but this is only fully spelled out in the schema, not in the description itself. No when-not or alternative tool is mentioned.

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