advbox_get_lawsuit_movements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not explain what a 'movement' is, the return format, ordering, pagination, or any other behavioral traits that could affect the agent's expectations.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it forgoes the opportunity to include valuable context that could be added without becoming 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter) and clear purpose, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and any behavioral details leaves questions about the response structure and the exact nature of 'movements', making it incomplete for a fully self-sufficient description.

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 fully documents lawsuit_id with 100% coverage ('Lawsuit ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, neither clarifying the parameter's format nor its role in the request.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('movements/updates of a specific lawsuit'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like advbox_get_lawsuit_history or advbox_get_last_movements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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