get_parties

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 optional include_attorneys behavior and specifies the attorney data returned (firm name, contact info, bar number). It does not mention potential side effects, but as a 'get' tool, the read-only nature is clear. The scope ('all parties') and optional behavior are sufficiently transparent.

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 main purpose, and includes relevant use cases without any wasted words. 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?

Given the moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: party scope, optional attorneys, and use cases. It does not enumerate return fields for parties themselves, but the party types are listed, making it sufficiently complete for a list-type tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for court_code and case_number, including examples and formatting guidance. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 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 the tool 'Get all parties in a case' with specific party types (debtors, creditors, plaintiffs, defendants, trustees) and optionally attorneys. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_creditors by covering all parties, and from get_case by focusing on party lists.

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 lists concrete use cases ('conflicts checks, service lists, and identifying who is involved'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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