law.opinion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns plain text and metadata, implying a read operation, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if both or neither parameter is provided.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 ID-based fetch tool, the description covers the input requirements and return type (plain text + metadata). With no output schema, it provides enough context for the agent to understand the response, though details on metadata structure are omitted.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds significant value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of the two parameters ('Supply exactly one'), which is a key constraint not captured in the schema alone.

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 fetches full text of a US court opinion by CourtListener ID or citation, and returns plain text plus metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling law tools like law.case-search by specifying direct retrieval by identifier, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 instructs to supply exactly one of opinionId or citation, which is a clear usage rule. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as law.case-search for finding opinions without an exact ID or citation.

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