Fetch one search result's exact physical PDF page, reviewed evidence, provenance, and permanent citation URL. Use the returned classification and filename/page citation in the answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by listing what is returned: exact PDF page, reviewed evidence, provenance, permanent citation URL, and classification. It does not contradict the annotations and adds value beyond them.
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 focused sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and the second gives an actionable instruction. The key 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?
For a single-parameter fetch operation with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool retrieves and how to use the result. It is slightly thin on prerequisites or alternatives, but the low complexity and annotations keep it nearly complete.
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 schema has a single undocumented 'id' parameter (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It conveys that the id refers to a specific search result, but it does not explicitly state where the id comes from or its expected format, leaving some ambiguity.
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 action (fetch), a specific resource (one search result's PDF page, evidence, provenance, and citation URL), and identifies the operation as retrieving a single item rather than listing or searching. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search and get_case_overview.
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 the tool is used after a search result is selected ('one search result's'), and tells the agent to use the returned classification and citation in the answer. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer fetch over get_case_overview or list_case_topics, beyond the implication that fetch is for detailed evidence of a single result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: search queries the corpus, fetch retrieves a specific result page, get_case_overview provides the summary, and list_case_topics enumerates available topics. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.
Names are all lowercase imperative verbs, and multi-word tools use underscore-separated verb_noun format. The single-word names fetch and search are slightly less descriptive than the get_/list_ prefixed names, but the style is otherwise consistent.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only court-record connector: an orientation tool, a topic list, a search operation, and a page-fetch tool. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The set covers the full workflow from orientation and topic discovery to search and exact-page retrieval with provenance and citation. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose of answering questions from the Lipe record.