Get Judgment Header

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return data types (parties, judges, neutral citation, etc.) and stating it is an 'Authoritative source for UK judgment metadata,' which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 succinct with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN') and provides necessary workflow context in a few clear sentences, earning its length.

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?

With one well-described parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary context: when to use, prerequisite steps, and what the tool provides. No gaps remain for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the slug parameter including example formats. The description adds the context that the slug comes from case_law_search, but this is already implied by the parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves metadata (parties, judges, citation, court, dates) given a judgment slug, distinguishing it from sibling tools like judgment_get_index and judgment_get_paragraph by placing it in a clear workflow (search first, then header, then index, then paragraph).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug and need metadata.' It also outlines the prerequisite step of calling case_law_search first and the subsequent steps of using judgment_get_index and judgment_get_paragraph, effectively guiding the agent on how to combine tools.

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