get_litigation_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the API is unavailable on the portal, which is a notable limitation, but it fails to mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), error handling, rate limits, or any prerequisites. The note is helpful but leaves significant gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement and an important caveat. The Args section duplicates schema information but does not add clutter. Overall, it is short, front-loaded, and free of filler, though the duplicate param line is slightly redundant.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The main gaps are the lack of specification for the expected case_id format and incomplete guidance on when to use this tool given the API unavailability. It points to search_litigation but does not explain the consequences of using get_litigation_case directly or whether it is deprecated.

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 0%, and the description only repeats the schema's 'case_id: Case identifier' with no additional formatting, examples, or constraints. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Get details of a specific litigation case.' It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate among sibling litigation tools like get_patent_litigation or get_party_litigation. The API unavailability note adds context but does not clarify the scope of 'case'.

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 IMPORTANT note provides partial usage guidance by stating the API is not available on the Open Data Portal and directing users to search_litigation for details and workarounds. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe conditions under which it should not be called.

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