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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns the court's own words and surrounding facts, does not write an explanation, and does not give legal advice. It also discloses that no account is needed when a case number is provided, which helps set invocation 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 is front-loaded with the core return value and keeps usage guidance near the top. It is a bit dense, with long enumerative clauses, but every sentence earns its place: output contents, when to use, behavioral limits, and identification approach. No filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so concretely: entry number, filing date, exact court text, attachment indicator and link, surrounding entries, and case posture. It also covers invocation prerequisites and the non-legal-advice boundary, making it complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the identification strategy — use case_number with optional court, or use matter_id for an already-saved case — and makes clear that a docket number is only needed for a specific entry. This adds useful semantic grouping beyond the raw parameter list.

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: 'Return one docket entry in full' and enumerates the exact contents returned — number, filing date, court-published text, attachment link, surrounding entries, and case posture. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_case_documents or get_case_status without needing to inspect 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this when a user asks what the latest filing means, what an order says, or to explain a specific docket entry.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5, but the intended scenarios are unmistakable.

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