Get an opinion-announcement transcript

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds real operational context: max_chars is a 'soft cap', a truncated transcript 'ends by naming the part and start to continue from', and 'start' skips turns before it in the first selected announcement. This continuation protocol is exactly the kind of behavior structured fields can't convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list; each entry is a single useful line. Slight redundancy in restating parameter names, but nothing is wasted.

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 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and the truncation/continuation flow. It could say a bit more about the shape of returned 'turns', but the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description fully compensates, documenting all 8 parameters with format examples ('2014', '14-556'), semantics for start (H:MM:SS, M:SS, or seconds), part as a 1-based index, defaults for part/include_timestamps/max_chars, and the substring/text matching behavior of speaker and find.

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 (fetch the opinion-announcement transcript for a case) and elaborates with 'Justices announcing the decision (and any dissents read from the bench).' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_oral_argument, which covers a different transcript type.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and by the 'part' explanation covering multiple announcements, but the description never says when to choose this over get_oral_argument, get_case, or search_cases, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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