cases_get_by_ecli

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it returns normalized metadata and paragraph-level anchors, implying a safe read operation. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, auth requirements, or rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and key details (ECLI, structured sections). No extraneous words, every part is informative.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the optional parameter. It is complete enough given the complexity and sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the return format (structured sections and paragraph-level anchors) and that section_selector can retrieve specific sections, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 verb ('Retrieve'), the resource ('a specific case'), and the unique identifier ('ECLI'). It also mentions structured sections and paragraph-level anchors, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cases_search or cases_bulk_get.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it's clear from the description that this is for fetching a single case by ECLI, it does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention other tools for similar tasks.

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