de_rii_get_case_text

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, which provide strong transparency about the tool's behavior. The description adds the fact that it fetches full text, which is consistent but does not significantly enhance the behavioral picture beyond the annotations. With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 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 that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient. It earns a score of 5.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, output schema present), the description is fairly complete: it identifies the source and the action. It does not cover potential error conditions or rate limits, but these may be assumed from annotations. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Overall, it is almost complete, earning a score of 4.

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 has 100% description coverage, including a detailed description of doc_id with format examples and its origin. The tool's description does not add any additional information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool fetches the full text of a decision from rechtsprechung-im-internet.de (RII). It specifies the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'full text of a decision', providing good purpose clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like de_get_decision_text, which might serve a similar purpose for a different source, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 implicitly suggests usage after de_rii_case_search by mentioning that doc_id comes from that tool's result. This provides basic context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as other tools for different sources. Therefore, a score of 3 is given.

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