docketbird_follow_case

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context: monitoring frequency and that it triggers notifications. No contradictions.

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-organized with a 'When to use' section, but it redundantly includes an 'Args' block that restates the parameter name from the schema. Could omit that section for conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter format, and monitoring frequency. It is sufficient for an agent to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (only title 'Case Id'), but the description adds concrete meaning with an example format 'txnd-3:2007-cv-01697', compensating for the sparse schema. This helps the agent understand the expected input format.

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 a specific verb+resource combination ('Follow a court case so DocketBird monitors it for new filings') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like docketbird_search_cases or docketbird_get_case_details by focusing on ongoing monitoring.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states tracking/monitoring use cases. It also provides monitoring frequency (twice weekly for federal, once weekly for state), which helps the agent set expectations. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools, but the guidance is clear enough.

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