advbox_get_lawsuit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It merely states 'Get' with no elaboration on return values, error handling (e.g., if the ID is not found), or any side effects. For a read-only credential, the bare action is insufficient; the agent cannot anticipate what to expect on success or failure.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and target. It contains zero redundant or filler content, making it perfectly concise for the simple tool it describes.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic operation but omits any information about the return value or failure behavior. The agent knows what the tool does but not what to expect back, which is a notable gap for a retrieval operation.

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 already covers the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Lawsuit ID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies per rubric rules.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'lawsuit' and clearly identifies the scope as 'by ID from Advbox'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_lawsuits, create_lawsuit, update_lawsuit, and get_lawsuit_history, leaving no ambiguity about whether it retrieves a single existing record versus performing other operations.

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 phrase 'specific lawsuit by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single record when the ID is known, which contrasts with list_lawsuits for listing all. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The usage is inferred rather than directly stated.

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