get_subsequent_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering by date, the presence of a relation hint, and the likelihood of companion opinions and duplicates, including a clear caveat to verify relationships. This goes well beyond a bare functional statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core definition, followed by useful examples and a caveat. There is minor redundancy between the first sentence and the second sentence ('sharing the case's docket' vs 'same docket number'), but overall every sentence contributes.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it clarifies what kind of results to expect, how they are ordered, and that verification is needed due to potential duplicates. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and no critical usage condition is missing.

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 the schema fully documents the single 'citation' parameter as 'A citation or case name identifying the opinion.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it finds other opinions on the same docket number, covering rehearings, supplemental opinions, companions, and duplicates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_citing_opinions or get_authority_history by focusing on docket-linking rather than citation relationships.

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?

The description implies usage as a research aid and advises verifying the relationship because duplicates and companion opinions may appear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling, so the guidance remains implicit.

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