Court Rules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavior beyond that by stating the tool does NOT run the check and requires an API key. It also gives the exact endpoint, which is useful operational context an agent would not get from 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, then clarifies the critical non-execution behavior and endpoint, earning every word.

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 is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool produces, the endpoint, and the API-key requirement. It does not detail the curl command format or how the API key is embedded, but given no output schema and a simple formatting task, the missing details are minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full weight.

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 and resource: 'Generate a curl command' for the Court Rules compliance check API. It also clarifies the tool does not run the check itself, which differentiates it from what a tool named 'check_compliance' might otherwise be expected to do.

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 clearly states this tool formats inputs into a curl command rather than executing the check, which tells the agent when NOT to expect execution. It implies the use case of producing a command for external execution, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state conditions beyond that.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish safety. It adds useful content expectations but no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and schema indicate, such as error behavior, availability of associated documents, or whether details can be partial.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details of a specific enforcement action') and then efficiently lists the kind of information returned. Every phrase earns its place with no 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?

For a simple, single-parameter, read-only detail-fetch tool, the definition is complete: the input is well specified, the annotations clarify safety, and the description enumerates the return contents even in the absence of an output schema. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter event_id is already documented as 'The UUID or public slug of the enforcement event.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('full details of a specific enforcement action') and enumerates distinct content areas (laws cited, remedies, source quotes, document URLs). It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_enforcement_actions, which is for finding actions, and get_enforcement_stats, which is for aggregated 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 wording 'specific enforcement action' and the required event_id imply the tool is for retrieving one known entity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over search_enforcement_actions or how to obtain a valid event_id. Usage context is reasonable but left to inference rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds that the operation returns summary statistics, but provides no additional behavioral detail such as whether individual actions are excluded or how aggregation is structured.

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?

Two short sentences, both informative: the first states the action and resource, the second explains allowed groupings and intended use. There is no filler or unnecessary 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 simple read-only aggregation tool with 100% schema coverage and one required parameter, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly. It could be slightly stronger by naming what the returned statistics contain, since there is no output schema, but this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (group_by, date_from, date_to) is already documented. The description repeats the group_by options and adds a purpose, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('summary statistics of enforcement actions'), and clarifies that this is aggregate rather than detail-level data. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_enforcement_details and search_enforcement_actions, which concern individual actions.

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?

It states the general use case, 'understand enforcement trends,' and enumerates grouping dimensions, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as search_enforcement_actions or get_enforcement_details, nor state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about rules being extracted from standing orders and practices documents, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or empty/error behavior. This is adequate for a safe read but not richly transparent.

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?

Two efficient sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler or repetition of parameter names or title. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple read-only retrieval with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It gives the source of the rules and the judge-specific scope, though it stops short of describing the response shape or how this relates to the sibling search_filing_rules tool.

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 both parameters (judge_slug and district_id) already have descriptive examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the judge scope, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get all extracted rules') and clearly scopes it to 'a specific judge.' The source attribution to standing orders and individual practices documents distinguishes this from broader rule-search siblings, so an agent can identify what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need all extracted rules for one judge, not for generic filing-rule searches. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it slightly below a 5.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, and the description adds meaningful context by stating the results include official source URLs and the last time Court Rules checked the source. This gives an agent useful expectations about data provenance and freshness beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire definition with no filler: one states the action and filters, the second states the return value. The primary purpose is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with five optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and the description covers the return value despite there being no output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not specify how filters combine or whether ranges are inclusive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and format. The description groups parameters into filter dimensions (district, calendar year, date range) but does not add material semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List court holidays and closure dates,' and immediately scopes the tool with filter dimensions and return content. No sibling tool covers holidays or closure dates, so it is clearly distinguishable without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever court holidays or closure dates are needed, optionally narrowed by district, year, or date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's unique domain and clear filter options make the intended usage unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes status and judge counts, but it does not disclose details like pagination, data freshness, or whether the optional status filter affects the response. With annotations covering the main risk, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary context. It communicates the resource, scope, and key output fields efficiently.

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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the optional 'status' parameter filters the listed courts, but the schema already documents that, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the sole parameter 'status' is already documented as a filter with enumerated values. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the mention of 'status' in the return context could briefly conflate output with the filter parameter.

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'), resource ('courts'), and scope ('all'), with additional output details ('status and judge counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_court_holidays and search_judges.

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 implies when to use it—when an agent needs an unfiltered list of courts with status and judge counts—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides implied usage context but no exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description additionally discloses the return shape ('structured enforcement events with fines, violations, and source citations'), which is valuable because there is no output schema. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second concisely covers filters and return content. Every clause contributes useful signal.

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 an optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key filters, and return contents, while the schema covers parameter constraints. Minor gaps include ordering/pagination behavior and how filters combine, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including examples and formats. The description summarizes the filter categories but does not add meaning beyond the schema in terms of syntax, allowed values, or format.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('privacy and regulatory enforcement actions'), and enumerates the filter dimensions, making the tool's basic purpose clear. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like get_enforcement_details and get_enforcement_stats (list vs. details/stats), but it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives direct usage context: 'Search privacy and regulatory enforcement actions' and lists the available filters, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to siblings such as get_enforcement_details, which would be needed for full differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches only 'active source documents' (excluding inactive ones) and 'Returns structured summaries with source provenance by default,' which informs the agent about filtering and output shape. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence states scope and source constraint, the second gives when-to-use scenarios and default output behavior. The use-case list is long but each item is a distinct, searchable filing-rule category.

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, topical scope, and default return shape, while the 100%-covered schema handles all 9 optional parameters. It is slightly incomplete only in not pointing to the most similar sibling (get_judge_rules) for judge-specific retrieval when a single judge's rules are needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each of the nine parameters has its own description, including enums for case_type, logic_type, and workflow_phase. The tool description does not need to restate parameter meanings; it adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search extracted court filing rules from active source documents') and enumerates concrete topics such as e-filing requirements, service, fees, courtesy copies, and rejection or cure windows. It clearly differentiates from enforcement-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_judge_rules despite overlapping on judge or courtroom preferences.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this for state and federal e-filing requirements...' covering a clear set of legal research scenarios. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives like get_judge_rules or check_compliance, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the return fields (judge name, slug, type, district, status), which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose sorting, default limits, or filtering nuances beyond the parameters. Given the annotation coverage, this is a reasonable but not exceptional disclosure.

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 a single, tight sentence that packs the purpose and return fields without extra fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 simple, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and the search dimensions. It lacks explicit mention of default limit behavior or pagination, but given the simplicity and the annotation coverage, it is generally complete. The agent can infer the output structure from the description, which is sufficient for a first call.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond restating 'by district, name, or type' which maps to the parameters. It does not explain limit semantics or any interdependencies, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('judges'), and specifies the search dimensions (district, name, type). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (e.g., search_filing_rules, search_enforcement_actions) by the subject matter, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and gives enough specificity for an agent to select it for judge-related lookups.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it is for general judge searching, but without stating comparisons to other search tools, an agent might not know when to choose this over search_filing_rules or others. Only the parameter names hint at usage, but that is not guidance.

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