get_case

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

Without annotations, description discloses valid doc_id formats, sources, and that wrong format causes 400/404 errors. Adds context about backend (ES side) and date of test. Does not discuss rate limits or auth, but acceptable for a read-only retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences and one warning, all front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words; each sentence serves a clear role: purpose, acceptable sources, and crucial caveat.

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 single-param get tool, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and a key limitation. Could mention return value briefly, but given no output schema, it's not strictly necessary. Sibling context helps complete the picture.

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%, but description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains two origins of doc_id, specific formats, and warning about browse_full_corpus. Schema alone only states valid formats; description provides necessary usage context.

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 it fetches single case details by doc_id, with specific verb '取單條' and resource '判決詳情'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying valid doc_id sources and warning against use with browse_full_corpus 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?

Explicitly when to use: with doc_id from search_cases, search_judgments, or search_judgments_full. Explicitly when not to use: with doc_id from browse_full_corpus (will 404). Also notes browse_full_corpus already provides full text, so no need to use this tool.

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