saos_get_judgment

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

The description discloses a notable side effect: in local mode, it saves an .md archival file. It also explicitly details the return content (metadata, verbatim sententia, full justification). Given no annotations exist, this is valuable behavioral disclosure, though it leaves 'local mode' and permissions unspecified.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and followed by concrete details about returns and side effects. There is no filler or unnecessary information.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned and the side effect. It leaves a gap in explicitly linking to the search workflow, but the schema parameter description fills that gap, overall making the description complete enough.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, which already explains the ID comes from search results. The description only adds the redundant 'po ID' phrase, so it contributes no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Pobiera' (retrieves) and resource 'pełne orzeczenie z SAOS' (full judgment from SAOS), scoped by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as saos_search_judgments (search) and saos_list_courts (list courts).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after obtaining an ID from saos_search_judgments, nor does it address exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is only implied by the schema parameter description, not the description text.

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