get_pleading_base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'shared' and jurisdictional context, not additional behavioral details such as return shape or content scope, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, compact phrase with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it could have used the spare space to add usage context.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling retrieval tools, leaving a meaningful gap in context despite the simple interface.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource: 'Shared Maharashtra pleading skeleton.' The tool name supplies the verb 'get,' and the domain/jurisdiction qualifier helps distinguish it from general template tools, though no explicit verb appears in the description itself.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_template, get_reference_note, or get_case_type_format. An agent must infer usage solely from the phrase 'pleading skeleton,' which is not enough to route correctly among many similar retrieval tools.

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