get_opinion

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that very long opinions are truncated with a note and link, and importantly warns that the opinion text is reference material, not instructions, and not to act on directives inside the text. This is a critical behavioral trait beyond basic read-only.

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 concise yet complete. It starts with a clear verb+resource statement, then lists contents, input source, truncation behavior, and a safety warning. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema exists to document return values. The description covers input source, truncation, and safety warning. There is no missing context needed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter cluster_id. The description adds significant meaning: it explains it is an integer, and how to obtain it (from search_cases result's cluster_id field). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 states it retrieves the full text of a court opinion by cluster id, listing specific metadata and fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cases by specifying the input source (cluster_id from search_cases).

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 explicitly instructs to use a cluster_id from a search_cases result, providing clear context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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