de_oldp_get_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'fetch full text' behavior, but this is largely implied by the name and does not enrich beyond the annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, error conditions) are provided, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with zero superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, making it immediately scannable. Perfect conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It states what the tool returns ('full text of one decision') and the source. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention the requirement for a case_ref from search, but this is covered by the schema and is sufficiently implied by the naming convention. Overall, it is complete for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 100%, so the single parameter case_ref is fully documented in the input schema (numeric id or slug from search). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, but since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), object ('full text of one decision'), and source ('Open Legal Data'). It is clear about the resource type but does not differentiate among sibling tools like de_get_decision or de_rii_get_case_text, which also fetch decisions. The name 'de_oldp_get_case' hints at the OLDP dataset, but the description alone does not explicitly distinguish it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires a case_ref from a de_oldp_case_search result, nor does it explain when to prefer this over other case-fetching tools. The input schema implies the relationship to search, but the description itself offers no usage context or exclusions.

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