Get Case Details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the comprehensive return fields (case status, parties, orders, etc.) and explaining how to discover order filenames, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is concise: three sentences that quickly convey the main purpose, return content, and usage guidance. No extraneous information is present, earning full marks.

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 complexity of Indian court cases and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a thorough list of return fields and valuable guidance on using the tool in conjunction with sibling tools. This fully compensates for any missing structured information.

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?

The schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'cnr', including an example. The description repeats the example but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Retrieve comprehensive details' and the resource 'Indian court case by CNR'. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that this tool should be used first to discover order filenames before calling ecourts_get_order or ecourts_get_order_ai.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: use it first to discover order filenames. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tools, leaving some room for improvement.

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