get_decision_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it separates majority/concurring/dissent opinions and compacts long opinions by default, requiring full=true for complete text. This helps an agent understand the tool's output behavior and default settings.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately followed by key behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes substance, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and important defaults, but it omits how the tool behaves when multiple identifier types are provided, and does not explicitly state that at least one identifier is required despite no required params in the schema. This creates a minor gap for an agent constructing a valid request.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the behavior of 'full' (compacted by default) and the meaning of 'opinionType' (separating opinions), which goes slightly beyond the schema's phrasing. However, it does not provide additional details on identifier precedence.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full text of a court decision'), and lists multiple lookup methods (citation, CourtListener id, case name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_law_text and get_regulation_text, which handle statutes and regulations.

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 clearly establishes this tool is for retrieving court decision text, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the tool's scope, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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