il_get_case

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by revealing it reads from a locally-cached dataset (the same as il_search_case_law) and that full judgment text is included. No contradictions.

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 that front-load the purpose and provide essential context via a cross-reference. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (structure presumably covered there) and comprehensive annotations, the description effectively covers what the tool does, its input source, and a pointer to additional notes. It is complete for the use case.

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 covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating the parameter originates from il_search_case_law results, providing context beyond the schema. Baseline 3, plus one for added value.

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 fetches full detail including full judgment text for one case by judgment_id, differentiating it from siblings like il_search_case_law (which returns summaries) and il_get_law (for laws).

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 explicitly says the judgment_id should come from il_search_case_law results, and directs users to that tool's docstring for caching details. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for multiple cases), though that is implied.

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