get_uitspraak

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (official Open Data API), the return contents (metadata fields like court, date, rechtsgebied, zaaknummer, plain-text body, relations, links), and the behavior when content is missing (states it, do not invent). This is solid transparency, though it omits potential details like rate limits or authentication, which are not critical for a simple read tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then provides necessary detail on return values and edge-case behavior. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple fetch tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns (including metadata fields, body, relations, and links) and how it behaves when the ECLI is invalid or has no body. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage: id (alias for ecli), ecli (with example and alias), metadataOnly (boolean). The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond reinforcing that the tool works by ECLI, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed 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 tool 'Fetch the full text and metadata of a single Dutch court decision by ECLI', specifying a concrete action (fetch), a precise resource (single court decision), and the key identifier (ECLI). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_uitspraken (searching) and bulk tools by emphasizing 'single'.

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?

It implies when to use: when you have a specific ECLI and need the full decision or metadata. The caution 'If the ECLI is not published or has no body text, the tool says so — do not invent or cite it' gives explicit guidance on handling missing results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_uitspraken for discovery, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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