get_court_decision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds the key behavioral trait of 'exakter Lookup ohne Fuzzy-Fallback', which clarifies the exact-match nature and absence of fuzzy search behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a use-case line, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior (exact lookup, use-case). Minor gaps: does not mention return format or error handling for invalid signatures, but overall adequate.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (signature and language). The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves a single court decision by signature, with a specific use-case (detail view) and exact lookup without fuzzy fallback. It distinguishes from sibling search_court_decisions which would return multiple results.

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 guides when to use: for a detail view of a specific judgment using a signature obtained from search_court_decisions. It explicitly says it's an exact lookup without fuzzy fallback, implying when not to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like search_by_law_reference or list_courts.

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