docketbird_list_courts

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds key behavioral details: live API data, the curated vs full set behavior, search result limits (up to 25 ranked matches), and the use of court_system to include unlisted state courts. No contradictions with 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 bold headers and bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose; the verbosity is justified by the need to explain multiple modes.

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 three parameters and lack of schema descriptions, the description covers all modes and parameter effects. It includes behavior for no arguments, search, and court_system, as well as the optional court_type filter. The output schema handles return structure, so no further details needed.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: search for free-text lookup, court_system for browsing a system, court_type as an optional filter. It also describes default behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 lists courts covered by DocketBird, live from the API, with three distinct lookup modes (none, search, court_system). It distinguishes itself from sibling docketbird_list_court_systems by focusing on individual courts rather than court systems.

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 explains when to use each argument: no arguments returns a curated set, search is the fastest way to find a court_id, and court_system browses all courts in a system. It indirectly contrasts with search tools but does not explicitly list 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.