Get Judgment Paragraph Index

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the output contains eId and preview line per paragraph. It also clues the agent that this is a list/index operation rather than full-text retrieval, which supports correct follow-up tool selection.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and keeps all sentences purposeful. It packs workflow, tool interrelationships, and output expectations into three concise lines without unnecessary filler.

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, has one fully documented parameter, includes an output schema, and benefits from complete annotation coverage. The description supplies the necessary contextual glue by linking to preceding and follow-up tools, making it sufficiently complete for accurate agent invocation.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with a clear example ('uksc/2024/12'), and the description reinforces the meaning by saying the tool is used when you have a judgment slug and instructs you to get it from case_law_search. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema's bare definition.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a paragraph navigation index with 'eId + preview line for every paragraph.' It names the specific resource (judgment paragraphs) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like case_law_search, judgment_get_paragraph, and case_law_grep_judgment by positioning it as the index lookup step in the workflow.

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 begins with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug,' providing an explicit trigger condition. It also prescribes the workflow: call case_law_search first to obtain the slug, then use this tool, and afterward feed eIds into judgment_get_paragraph or case_law_grep_judgment, thereby clarifying when to use this tool versus its alternatives.

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