get_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the response includes a 'menu' object with 'modified' timestamps (null = never purchased), and explains cost behavior ('Free unless include_live_pacer=true'). It could add details about authentication or edge cases, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences, starts with the core purpose, and packs relevant details (metadata fields, menu timestamps, cost) without redundancy or fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values—it does, by listing metadata categories and the menu object with timestamp semantics. It also provides workflow context ('Always call this first'). It could mention error behavior or the full list of sub-resources, but for a read-only metadata hub, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented (court_code examples, long-form case_number, PACER cost note). The description does not offer unique parameter meaning beyond the schema; the cost note duplicates the schema's include_live_pacer description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all metadata for a known case' and enumerates specific contents (title, chapter, judge, dates, assets, liabilities) and sub-resource links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dockets and get_claims by positioning itself as the umbrella resource-fetching tool.

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 instruction 'Always call this first after finding a case' provides explicit when-to-use guidance. It implies the tool precedes sub-resource fetches, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria like 'for dockets use get_dockets instead,' so it falls just short of a 5.

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