Read a court decision

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: text comes from the official PDF, output is paginated by page range, and `text_status` reports whether text was found and why if not — a useful failure-mode disclosure.

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, and the second clause about text_status is well-placed and earns its space. The parenthetical list of jurisdictions is long but informational rather than padding.

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, the description must carry return-value burden, and it does flag metadata, full text, and the text_status field. It stops short of describing what the metadata contains or how pages interact with max_chars truncation, but it is complete enough to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 75% (slug, page_start, page_end documented; max_chars only carries a default and bounds). The description reinforces the page-range semantics and ties max_chars to the page window ('default: as many as max_chars allows'), adding meaning the raw schema doesn't state.

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 (Reads) and resource (a decision published on Leginova), and enumerates the courts covered, so it is immediately distinguishable from siblings like leginova_search or leginova_get_code_article. The scope — metadata plus extracted full text — is spelled out rather than implied.

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?

It is clear this tool fetches a decision once you have a slug, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of how it relates to the sibling search tools that produce the slug. The usage is inferable from the slug requirement and the verb, not stated.

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