law.docket-search

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

The description lists returned fields (case name, court, docket number, dates, judge, docket URL), which gives some transparency. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination limits, error handling, or whether it returns only recent dockets. It states 'Returns ...' but no detail on absence of results or rate limits.

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, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key input options. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and return fields but lacks completeness on query syntax, error behavior, pagination, and handling of no results. It is minimally adequate for a moderately complex search tool.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 50% description coverage (q, court, docketNumber have descriptions). The main description adds context by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., 'or exact docketNumber'). However, filedAfter, filedBefore, and page are not individually described beyond 'filed date range' in the description, and page is not mentioned. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 it searches US federal court dockets from the RECAP/PACER archive, using full-text query, optional court and date range, or exact docket number. It specifies the resource (dockets) and action (search). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like law.case-search, which might search case law rather than dockets.

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 by listing search options (full-text, court, date range, exact docket number). It provides context on how to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., law.case-search for case law, law.opinion for opinions). No 'when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned.

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