get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the caching mechanism, the conditional branches (cached vs. not cached, purchase true/false), and what is returned in each scenario. The cost implications of purchase=true and the 'no cost' cached case are transparent, leaving no major behavioral surprises.

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 compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses a conditional structure to explain behaviors without redundancy. Every sentence contributes necessary context, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns in each possible branch (cached, purchase=true, purchase=false). It also offers context on obtaining docket_seq and the part parameter, making it complete for a tool of this moderate complexity.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the format of docket_seq (e.g., '42.00000'), emphasizing that part defaults to 1 (main doc), and reiterating the purchase default. This extra context goes beyond the schema but does not fully restructure parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a PDF attached to a docket entry.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_case (which retrieves case-level info) and get_dockets (which lists docket entries). The purpose is unambiguous and accurately reflects the tool's function.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need a specific PDF from a docket entry. It explains the default behavior (purchase=false) and how to change it, and notes that docket_seq comes from docket entries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, though the guidance is substantive enough to be above a basic 3.

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