get_new_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as retrieving entries (read operation) and optionally filtering by date, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention any side effects, or discuss authentication or rate limits. The behavior is implied but not fully 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-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering capability. It does not detail the return format or pagination, but the limit parameter suggests pagination. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds context by linking the 'since' parameter to the use case of checking new filings, but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 retrieves docket entries (filings) for a case, with optional date filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_docket' or 'get_docket_summary' by focusing on entries and the specific use case of checking recent filings.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check what has been filed since you last looked at a case,' providing a concrete use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for different needs.

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