get_judgment

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 JID-over-URL priority, the rich return structure, and a genuine operational caveat (inspect history to check whether the judgment was overturned or remanded before citing). It omits auth/rate-limit or failure-mode behavior, so it stops short of 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-loads the purpose, then structures the two query methods and the return fields with an explicit caveat. Slightly long but every section (args, returns, history warning) carries load, so size is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields (case_id, main_text, facts, reasoning, cited_statutes, history, etc.) and explaining history_note. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though the absence of the input schema descriptions means ambiguous dual-input behavior goes unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents both parameters with concrete format examples for jid (TPSV,104,台上,472,20150326,1) and url, and explains that jid is preferred. It does not clarify what happens if both or neither are supplied, keeping it below 5.

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 specific verb+resource (取得單一裁判書全文 – retrieve a single judgment's full text) and explicitly scopes to a single document, distinguishing it from the sibling search_judgments. An agent can tell immediately this is the full-text fetch step after a search.

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?

Explains the two lookup paths (by JID via Open Data API, by URL via page load) and states the priority order. It also notes the JID comes from search results, implying the search→get workflow. It does not, however, explicitly name search_judgments as the alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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