get_legal_precedent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Fetch' (implying read-only) but does not confirm if authentication is needed, what happens on invalid input, or any rate limits. No mention of return type beyond 'complete text and metadata'.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Fetch') and specifies the resource and identifiers. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions 'complete text and metadata', which gives a hint but is not detailed. It lacks information on pagination, error handling, or whether both parameters are simultaneously usable. Sufficient for a simple fetch but could be improved.

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 each parameter described minimally. The tool description summarizes the two parameters as 'by its signature or slug' but adds no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers meaning.

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 the complete text and metadata of a legal ruling using a signature or slug. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_legal_precedents' (which is for searching) by specifying the exact identifiers needed for retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_legal_precedents'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a known signature or slug, nor does it indicate when not to use this tool.

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