get_judgment_text

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description usefully adds output-content behavior: it scopes to `#content` so boilerplate nav/header is excluded and only the adjudicating composition and justification are returned. It also discloses two real limitations ('no PDF, no JS') that constrain what pages will work.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, followed by two tight clauses on parser scope and limitations. The parser-container detail is slightly implementation-flavored, but it justifies itself by explaining why the output is clean.

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 an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description need only add what structured fields cannot: it explains the extraction scope and the PDF/JS limitations. The one gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the sibling search and coverage tools.

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% and the single `path` parameter is documented with a concrete example URL in the schema. The description adds nothing about accepted path formats or resolution, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching the full text ('Pelny tekst') of a TK judgment from trybunal.gov.pl. It is clearly distinguishable from search_judgments (retrieval vs discovery), though it never names or routes against its siblings explicitly.

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 explains parser behavior but never says when to use this tool versus search_judgments or tk_coverage, nor what input is expected (a URL/path obtained elsewhere). Usage is only inferable from the word 'full text'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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