get_federal_case

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details', which implies read-only, but does not mention PACER access requirements, potential fees, error behavior, or whether the tool guarantees current data. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple getter with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides enough context to complete the task, including the PACER source. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavior details, which are handled in other dimensions, so it is not fully complete on its own.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (case_id and court_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, thus meeting the baseline without enhancing it.

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 details') and the resource ('specific federal case') with a distinct source ('from PACER'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_federal_cases (searching) and get_case_details (generic case details). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_federal_cases, get_court_filings, or get_case_details. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a PACER case ID) or exclusions, leaving the selection to inference.

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