justice_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mode-switching behavior, clarifies that date_from/date_to only apply to aggregates, explains that ``dissent`` includes partial dissents (broken out) and ``concurring`` includes special/result concurrences, and states the 1997-present coverage limit. It omits error/permission behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the conditional behavior, then statistical semantics, then the coverage caveat. Every sentence carries weight; the only mild redundancy is the parenthetical breakdown that repeats twice.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still supplies the non-obvious semantics (dissent/concurring counting rules, temporal coverage). For a two-mode, four-param tool with no annotations this is nearly complete, lacking only failure/permission context.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds real value by explaining the citation-vs-no-citation branching and that date filters scope only the aggregate path, but this is largely restating schema descriptions. 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?

States a clear verb (Get) and resource (justice information) and immediately disambiguates into the two modes it serves: voting record for a specific case, or aggregate statistics across cases. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the two-mode split is specific enough to distinguish it from generic opinion-search tools.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: 'If citation is provided, returns the voting record... Otherwise, returns aggregate stats...'. This tells the agent exactly which input selects which behavior, though it names no alternative sibling for the aggregate case (e.g. authoring_justice_on_issue).

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