Get Judgment Paragraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format (XML), typical token length, and eId normalization (from input schema), without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides essential prerequisite and output characteristics. Every word serves a purpose and is front-loaded.

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, the presence of annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, prerequisite step, and expected output characteristics (XML, token range). No additional information is necessary.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for both parameters: slug format example ('uksc/2024/12') and eId source (from index) plus normalization behavior ('numeric strings like '12' are accepted'). This provides actionable guidance beyond the schema.

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 'Get a single paragraph from a UK court judgment by its LegalDocML eId,' clearly identifying the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('paragraph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like judgment_get_index and judgment_get_header.

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 advises 'Use judgment_get_index first to discover available eIds,' providing clear prerequisite guidance. It also notes the typical token range (400–1,700 tokens), helping set expectations. No explicit when-not-to-use statement is given, but the context is sufficient for proper selection.

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