search_dockets

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

Description states it searches CourtListener and returns a list with case IDs, but with no annotations, it lacks details on result limits (though param schema has limit), ordering, pagination, or error behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence that effectively conveys purpose and output. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value is a list of matching cases with IDs, usable in other tools. This provides basic output context. However, missing details on return structure, error handling, and result format. Acceptable for a search tool given sibling tools cover specifics.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra context by specifying search types (case name, party, docket number) that map to the query parameter, but does not add details beyond schema for other parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches federal court dockets by case name, party name, or docket number, and returns matching cases with IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_docket which retrieve specific dockets 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?

Description implies usage for searching dockets and mentions returned IDs can be used in other tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_docket, get_docket_summary, etc. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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