law.judge-lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output but omits any details about error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal to be fully transparent.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, detailing the return, and suggesting use cases.

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 lookup tool with a straightforward schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the output and use cases. Minor omissions, such as what happens when no results are found, do not significantly detract from overall completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 50%, meaning the 'limit' parameter lacks a description. The tool description does not explain 'limit' beyond what the schema says. It adds minimal value over the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'CourtListener federal judge lookup by name.' It specifies the resource (federal judge), action (lookup), and returned data (biographical data like DOB, DOD, FJC ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like law.attorney-lookup.

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 context ('useful for venue research, judicial profile lookup, and bio enrichment') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, given the specificity of 'federal judge,' the usage is clear enough.

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