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

Goes well beyond the annotations: quota cost of one call per invocation, no quota deduction during service downtime, and precise meaning of found=False plus reason="temporarily_unavailable". It also warns that case-number-combined records must be checked manually and forbids concluding a judgment does not exist from found=False.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, then cleanly separated into an "อ่านผล" (reading the result) section. It runs long, but nearly every line carries operational meaning; a small amount of overlap with the schema's format note could be trimmed.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description supplies the interpretation an agent actually needs: verdict=None is normal, appellant is the filing party or None, full_text is chunk-stitched with possible spacing loss at seams, and cited entries carry law_code usable with get_law_document. Privacy handling is flagged via deka_privacy_note.

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 the schema already documents the "number/year BE" format, so heavy lifting is done structurally. The description adds provenance guidance (where the number comes from) and reinforces that the lookup is an exact match with no normalization, which is marginally useful 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch one full Supreme Court judgment by its deka number, including the full facts/reasoning/judgment text. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_law, deka_by_section, and verify_citation, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives a positive precondition (you already know the number, from the user or from search_law/deka_by_section, and need the full text) and an explicit negative list routing to the correct siblings with the condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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