AgentLegal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential network calls, or what 'detailed information' includes. The agent receives no explicit safety or performance cues.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized with no redundant 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?

Given the low complexity (three optional params, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, required parameter combinations, or potential pitfalls. It leaves room for ambiguity when no parameters are provided.

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 parameters are descriptively named. The description adds minimal extra context by indicating that docket_id is primary and case_name is for search, but this does not significantly exceed schema explanations.

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 clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a specific court case/docket. It distinguishes between lookup by docket ID or case name search, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_cases and search_cases.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have a docket ID or want to search by case name. No explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as for company-specific cases or broad searches.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output types (opinions, dockets, summaries) but omits behaviors like pagination, rate limits, error handling, safety, or mutability. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded verb and resource. It is concise but could benefit from slight restructuring to improve readability (e.g., splitting outputs). 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It conveys purpose and returns but lacks details on coverage (only federal? state?), return format, and result structure. Gaps exist.

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%: all 4 parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Find', resource 'federal court cases involving a specific company', and lists return types. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_case' (singular) and 'search_cases' (general search).

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 usage context (company-specific case lookup) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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 description names the external data source (CourtListener/RECAP Archive) and action (search), which is helpful given no annotations. However, it lacks disclosure of rate limits, pagination behavior, or any effects on external systems. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and key capabilities. No redundant or extraneous 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?

The description does not explain return values or output format, which is problematic since there is no output schema. It also omits details about sorting, pagination limits (beyond the limit parameter), or error handling. For a search tool, more context on what the response contains is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by court, date, and case type, which aligns with parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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 clearly states the tool searches federal court opinions/cases, specifies the source (CourtListener/RECAP Archive), and mentions filtering by court, date, and case type. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_case' and 'get_company_cases' by implying a broader search capability.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for searching, but does not mention when to use 'get_case' for a single case or 'get_company_cases' for company-specific data. Context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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