get_constitutional_case_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: keyword matching runs only on unpunctuated official text and is limited to 憲判字 and pending cases, early 釋字 lack PDFs with full petition text in petition_text, and scanned PDFs may contain OCR errors. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the data-quality and scope caveats are the salient ones for a retrieval tool.

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 dense but well organized, leading with the resource inventory before the numbered usage modes and arg explanations. Every sentence carries information, though the sheer length and tight CJK formatting make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still details what each call returns (id, group, title, url; announcements; case fields such as original case number, consolidation, petitioner). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly across all three modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: each of the three parameters is explained with accepted formats (case number styles, docket:/hearing:/amicus: ids, numeric vs news: document ids), example keywords, and the behavioral consequence of each combination.

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 a specific verb+resource (retrieving Constitutional Court case-file documents) and enumerates the document types covered. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_interpretation, noting that judgment text and full opinions live there instead.

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?

Three numbered modes state exactly which argument combinations to pass and what each returns (case_id alone, case_id+keyword, document_id alone). It also names the alternative tool (get_interpretation) and the condition that routes to it, leaving nothing to inference.

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