collect_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the 10-docket and 50-filing caps, truncation reporting via dockets_capped and filings_capped_per_docket, the download bundle behavior with a 10-file limit, and date-defaulting rules including the docket skip and response fields. This is well beyond surface-level 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 compact and well organized: purpose first, then caps and truncation visibility, then download behavior, then shared search semantics and a safety warning. Every sentence adds operational value, with no filler or repetition.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers caps, truncation, download behavior, date defaults, and important response fields. The output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered elsewhere. Minor gaps remain around the precise 'related' criteria and the semantics of category/industry, but overall this gives an agent enough 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query, document_type, docket, download, match, search_in, and date_field behavior, and references search_filings for date-defaulting rules. However, category, industry, start_date, and end_date are left essentially unexplained, and exact date formats are not addressed, so compensation is only partial.

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 opening sentence states a concrete action—'Search a term or document type, then list related filings by docket'—with a specific resource and scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_filings, get_filing, and download_bundle by the 'list related filings by docket' behavior, and it explicitly references sibling tools for shared semantics.

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 practical guidance: it explains when download mode is appropriate ('rather than fetching each file individually'), points to download_bundle as a related alternative, warns to narrow the query before enabling downloads, and clarifies that supplying a docket skips the 60-day default. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus search_filings, but the context is strong.

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