get_case_details

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. It only describes the return content, not how the tool behaves during operation.

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 relatively concise with clear sections and an example. The first sentence states the purpose directly, though it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lists return fields vaguely but does not mention error handling or API specifics.

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 parameter case_id is simply a string in the schema, but the description adds critical context: it can be a cluster or opinion ID and is obtained from search_cases. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Holt vollständige Details eines Falls von CourtListener', indicating a specific verb (holt), resource (Falldetails), and source (CourtListener). The example differentiates from sibling search tools by requiring a known ID.

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 explains that the case_id comes from search_cases, implying usage after searching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like search_by_citation.

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