get_party_litigation

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

The description transparently discloses the API unavailability, which is a significant behavioral caveat, but it does not mention expected outputs, error handling, or potential failure modes beyond the note.

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 and well-structured, with a clear note and bullet-like arguments. It avoids unnecessary fluff and gets to the point efficiently.

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?

It provides essential context including the API unavailability and alternative tool, but does not describe the return format or how results are presented, which could be useful for a get operation.

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?

All three parameters (party_name, role, limit) are described with meaningful context: party_name is defined as company/individual name, role is explained with allowed values and default behavior, and limit is clarified as max results. This fully complements 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 clearly states it retrieves litigation for a company or individual, but the caveat that the API is not available on the Open Data Portal and directs to search_litigation slightly muddles the primary purpose.

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?

It explicitly points users to search_litigation for details and workarounds, providing clear guidance on an alternative tool, though it does not elaborate on other scenarios or when this tool is preferred.

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