docketbird_get_case_details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: the upstream /documents endpoint has no pagination (entire docket fetched, page/page_size only shape response), potential 504 timeout for large dockets, and that parties/attorneys are not available from docket endpoints. This goes beyond the annotations.

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-structured with clear sections (When to use, Notes, Args) and front-loaded with a summary. While slightly long, every sentence provides value. A minor reduction could improve 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 the output schema exists, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral notes, and parameter details comprehensively. Sibling distinctions and limitations are addressed. The description leaves no critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the tool description fully explains all three parameters: case_id format with example, page defaults, and page_size defaults and max. This provides essential meaning the schema lacks.

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 retrieves a case's full docket sheet including case info and list of documents. It distinguishes from the sibling docketbird_get_case, which provides only metadata. The verb 'get' and resource 'docket sheet' are specific.

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 explicitly states when to use (when user wants the docket sheet or before downloading documents) and when not to use (for parties/attorneys, use docketbird_ask_litigation_graph). It also notes that for case metadata alone, use docketbird_get_case.

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