justice_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses conditional mode selection, aggregate-stat content (authorship count, dissent rate), optional date filtering, and data-coverage limits. It does not detail error behavior or side effects, but the operation is clearly a read-only lookup.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The mode distinction comes first, the filtering and coverage constraints follow, and no sentence is redundant.

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 an output schema is present and only four parameters with one required, the description covers the main behavioral branches, date-range filtering, and temporal coverage. It doesn't mention behavior for invalid citations, but that is a minor edge case for a lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how 'citation' switches the mode and how 'date_from'/'date_to' apply specifically to aggregate stats, which is not obvious from parameter descriptions alone.

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 the resource ('justice information') and immediately specifies two concrete behaviors: a voting record for a cited opinion, or aggregate statistics across cases. This distinguishes it from sibling opinion-lookup and citation tools even without naming them.

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 gives explicit branching guidance: 'If citation is provided, returns the voting record... Otherwise, returns aggregate stats.' It also states a clear temporal boundary (1997–present). It does not name sibling alternatives for cases outside that range, so it stops short of a 5.

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