get_precedent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (category, fields, full_text, related_laws, attachments, source_url), which is real behavioral information, but it is silent on read-only semantics, permissions/auth, pagination, and error behavior for an invalid id.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns structure is scannable with no filler. The Returns list is slightly padded with parenthetical examples, but every element is informative.

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, the Returns section usefully enumerates what comes back, and the single required parameter is fully explained, so an agent has what it needs to invoke and consume the tool. Missing only is any note on failure modes or whether the id must come from the same session's search.

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% – 'Precedent Id' is just a bare string – so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies the parameter's origin (search_precedents output) and gives three concrete id format examples spanning different record categories. It stops short of explaining whether formats are interchangeable, but adds substantial meaning.

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: retrieve the full text (全文) of a precedent. It also explicitly ties itself to search_precedents, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling (search vs. fetch full text) without opening either schema.

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 establishes the workflow prerequisite by saying the id comes from search_precedents results, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not name any exclusions or alternative fetch tools (get_judgment, get_interpretation), but the usage context is clear.

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