search_constitutional_docket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: results are cached locally for one day, the id can be chained into another tool, and the field set returned differs per status. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or result caps, leaving some gaps.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight bulleted breakdown of statuses and fields, then args. Efficient, though the separate 'Args' block partly repeats the parameter meanings and adds mild 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies status semantics, per-status return fields, the id linkage, and caching. It still leaves result counts, pagination, and any freshness/auth caveats unstated, so it is good but not fully complete.

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, and it largely does: keyword matching scope (case number, petitioner, cause, space-separated terms) and the three allowed status values are documented. It omits the default behavior when status is omitted (schema defaults to 'pending'), which keeps it from a 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 (list) and resource (undecided constitutional court cases) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_interpretation, which only holds published rulings. An agent can distinguish this from the other constitutional tools without opening a 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?

Explains the three status buckets (pending / hearing / amicus) and routes the agent onward: the returned id feeds get_constitutional_case_file. It implies the alternative (get_interpretation) but never states an explicit when-not condition or prerequisite, so it stops just short of a 5.

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