get_docket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses row duplication and merging by accession number, total_hits semantics, count_basis=distinct_accession, availability_scope='all', the absence of a 60-day default, client-side date filtering, and page=0 handling. This is far more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is organized into logical chunks: core purpose, docket/subdocket format, pagination, row-merging behavior, comparison to search_filings, sort order, and date behavior. No fluff 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers edge cases (page=0, subdocket lists, multi-docket filings, privileged filings, client-side date filtering) and differentiates behavior from a key sibling. An agent has enough to call this tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 docket_number format, subdockets values, page indexing, sort_order meaning and default, and date_field/envelope behavior. The only notable omission is the limit parameter, which is left to inference, but the overall parameter guidance is strong.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Return the docket sheet: related filings, applicants, and accession numbers.' It also gives concrete docket number examples and clearly differentiates itself from search_filings by scope and behavior. An agent can confidently identify this tool as the one that retrieves a docket sheet by docket number.

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 contrasts get_docket with search_filings: availability handling, sort order defaults, and date-field behavior. It implies the primary use case is when you have a docket number. It does not include an explicit 'use this when / use search_filings when' rule, but the comparisons provide strong routing guidance.

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