get_docket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states what the tool does and returns, without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence introduces the action and resource, the second lists key return fields. Front-loaded and to the point.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return values. However, it could be slightly improved by noting error scenarios or the need for a valid docket ID.

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 one parameter (`docket_id`) already described as 'CourtListener numeric docket ID'. The description repeats this without adding new details like expected format, range, or examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Fetch', the resource 'full metadata for a specific CourtListener docket', and lists the specific fields returned (case name, docket number, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `get_docket_summary` (summary vs full) and `search_dockets` (search vs fetch by ID).

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 mentions 'by its numeric ID' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_docket_summary` or `search_dockets`. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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