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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a key behavioral trait: up to 6 hours edge caching, indicated by cached/retrieved_at fields, and the option to force a fresh fetch. It also hints at removal handling. This is valuable transparency, though it doesn't mention error behavior or authentication.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently covers purpose, caching behavior, and fresh parameter usage without fluff or 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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the primary return (full text and URL), mentions cached/retrieved_at fields, and provides fresh usage context. It gives enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, providing parameter descriptions for both jid and fresh. The description adds meaning by explaining when fresh should be true (latest status or suspected removal), going beyond the schema's 'skip edge cache, force fetch' wording. This extra usage context raises it above the baseline 3.

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 retrieves the full text and official URL of a judgment by JID, using a specific verb (取得) and resource (裁判全文與官方網址). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_taiwan_judgments (search) and get_taiwan_interpretation (different document type).

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 provides clear context: use this when you have a JID to retrieve the full text. It also gives specific guidance on when to set fresh=true (need latest status or suspected removal). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the JID-based purpose implicitly differentiates it.

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