Get_petition_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: the proxy requirement for document URLs, the mandatory workflow steps when include_documents=True, and what the tool returns (petition fields, document metadata, legal context, timeline). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 well-structured with clear sections (critical warnings, workflow, use cases, returns, document access, parameters). Every sentence adds value, though the workflow section is somewhat lengthy. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with critical dependencies.

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 the tool's complexity (document access workflow, proxy requirement) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, critical behaviors, and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on workflow and context rather than repeating output structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It adds meaningful semantics: petition_id is 'Petition decision record identifier (UUID from search results)' and include_documents 'Include documentBag with file metadata (default True).' This provides crucial context about parameter sources and effects, though it could elaborate more on the documentBag structure.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get complete details for a specific petition by petition ID (UUID).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('petition details'), and scope ('complete details for a specific petition'), distinguishing it from search-oriented sibling tools like Search_petitions_balanced.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use for: Deep dive into specific petition, document metadata access, full legal context review.' It also distinguishes it from search tools by specifying it's for a 'specific petition' and outlines a mandatory workflow for document access, clearly indicating when to use sibling tools like fpd_get_document_download.

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