Get Judgment Paragraph

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that the tool returns paragraph XML content with a typical token range (400–1,700 tokens). This provides useful behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 usage guidance without any unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 simplicity (2 required params, good schema coverage, annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, prerequisites, output format, typical size, and sibling references. No gaps remain for this type of 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters well (slug format, eId normalization). The description adds context by linking eId to judgment_get_index and using the term 'LegalDocML eId', which reinforces the schema but does not significantly expand parameter meaning beyond what is already present. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the added context raises it to 4.

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's purpose: retrieving a paragraph's full text given a judgment slug and eId. It uses specific verbs ('get') and resources ('paragraph'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing judgment_get_index and case_law_grep_judgment.

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 tells when to use the tool ('when you have a judgment slug + LegalDocML eId') and provides guidance on prerequisites ('Call judgment_get_index FIRST...or use case_law_grep_judgment'), which helps the agent decide between tools.

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