court_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it lists courts with ids, supports optional filtering, and requires no authentication. As a read-only list operation, this is 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?

Description is concise (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains filters, third explains jurisdiction codes. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return (list of courts and ids). Covers all three parameters with clear context. Also connects to sibling tools (opinion_search, docket_lookup). Complete for a list 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?

Adds meaning beyond 100% schema coverage: explains jurisdiction codes in detail, notes that 'q' is case-insensitive and matches multiple fields, and clarifies that limit controls page size. This helps the agent use parameters effectively.

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 'List CourtListener courts and their ids' and explains their use in other tools. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing courts rather than searching opinions, dockets, etc.

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?

Explicitly says 'Works without a token' and explains optional filters. Implies usage for obtaining court ids before using opinion_search/docket_lookup. Could add explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but context is clear.

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