get_case_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, not any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response size, pagination, or error conditions. It does mention returning 'full text and details,' but that is more about purpose than behavior.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no fluff. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It explains the relationship to search_case_law and indicates the return includes full text, though it doesn't detail return fields—which is acceptable because an output schema exists.

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 100% of parameters, with the opinion_id described as 'The opinion ID from a search result.' The description adds slightly by reinforcing that the ID is from a search and that the tool gives 'full details of a specific... opinion,' but it doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Get full details of a specific court opinion by its ID.' It specifies the resource (court opinion) and the operation (get full details), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning search_case_law as a preceding step and emphasizing 'full text and details.'

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this after search_case_law to get the full text and details of a case.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to another tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools like get_case_record or get_federal_case. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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