docket_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the authentication-only nature and flags an important data caveat: RECAP holdings depend on what users have purchased on PACER, so absence of an entry/document may not mean it doesn't exist on PACER. It also explains what document metadata is returned. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the key non-obvious behaviors are covered.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool returns, how to invoke it (docket_id source and auth), and the data coverage caveat. No repetition or filler.

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?

The definition is self-sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly: input source, auth requirement, output contents, and data limitations are all described. Pagination is handled by the schema's cursor description, so no gap. The coverage caveat is especially valuable for interpreting results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including docket_id's origin from docket_lookup results. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating the docket_id source, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'the actual filing history of a federal docket from the RECAP archive' and itemizes the return contents: numbered entries, dates, descriptions, and archived PACER documents with page counts and availability. It also positions itself relative to docket_lookup by stating that a docket_id comes from that tool's results.

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?

It provides concrete usage context: pass a docket_id from docket_lookup, and requires COURTLISTENER_API_TOKEN. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the workflow cue ('from docket_lookup') makes the intended usage clear.

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