law.judge-lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating 'Returns parsed judge records'. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple lookup this is adequate. No contradictions.

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 long, each serving a purpose: the first defines the action and output, the second lists use cases. No 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?

Given the tool is a simple lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, input, and output. It could mention how to handle multiple results or pagination, but the limit parameter hints at this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 50% (only 'name' has a description). The description does not add any additional meaning for 'name' beyond what the schema provides, and it entirely fails to describe the 'limit' parameter, leaving a gap for the agent. The description should have explained the limit parameter's purpose.

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 is a federal judge lookup by name, specifies the source (CourtListener), and lists the types of data returned (DOB, DOD, FJC ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like law.case-search or 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 lists use cases (venue research, judicial profile lookup, bio enrichment) which indicates when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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