get_court_info

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses return values but does not mention behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid court IDs, or potential side effects. It adequately describes what the tool does but lacks deeper transparency.

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 well-structured with an Args/Returns section and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it could be slightly more concise by moving the bullet list into the schema, it is efficient and not overly verbose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the parameter format, return values, and provides usage examples. No further context is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero coverage for the 'court_id' parameter. The description compensates excellently by listing valid values and formats (e.g., 'scotus', 'ca1'-'ca11', 'cafc') and providing examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare definition.

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: retrieving information about a specific court. It specifies the verb ('Holt Informationen') and resource ('Gericht'), and provides detailed examples of court IDs (e.g., 'scotus', 'ca1'-'ca11') and return fields (name, jurisdiction, founding date, status). The sibling tools (e.g., get_case_details, search_cases) are distinct in purpose.

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 gives examples of how to use the tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage through examples, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead.

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