list_court_dockets

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the description is free to spend its words on subtler behavior, and it does: it warns that a filing code is not a classification, that `securities_candidate` means 'not ruled out' and even `securities_class_action` is unconfirmed. That is real epistemic context an agent needs before trusting the output. It omits ordering, pagination, and rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered caveats. Dense but each sentence adds information; the only slight drag is the stacked disclaimers in the middle paragraph.

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?

With no output schema and only two annotations, the description does the heavy lifting well, covering provenance, timing, classification caveats, and the unmatched case use. Still missing what a returned docket record looks like beyond the classification fields and how results are ordered or paged.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It richly explains the `classification` enum semantics and the meaning of `unmatched_only`, but leaves `limit` and `filed_within_days` (only obliquely implied by the 'weeks before' framing) undocumented. Partial compensation for a 4-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing federal dockets under nature-of-suit code 850 (Securities/Commodities) from CourtListener. The scope is unusually precise, but it never names a sibling (list_cases, search_announcements), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the timing note ('appear the day a case is filed, weeks before any press release') and the 'unmatched_only' gloss ('possible cases no firm has announced') hint at when the tool is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives.

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