Request Case Timeline

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: asynchronous nature, no AI credits consumed, case_id format constraints, court-specific result statuses (completed/pending/failed), and the need to poll with requestId. This goes beyond typical descriptions and covers failure modes (case number will fail).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides dense, non-redundant details in six short sentences. Every sentence earns its place – covering behavioral nuances, parameter constraints, and court-specific outcomes. It is efficiently structured for an async tool with multiple edge cases.

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 an async job with different court types and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response statuses, orderCount for Supreme Court, the polling mechanism with get_case_timeline, and the need for requestId. No critical context appears missing.

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 description already fully covers the case_id parameter (24-char ObjectId, from search results, case number fails). The tool description repeats this info without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 'kicks off a fetch of the live order and hearing history for a case directly from the court's own systems' – a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_case_timeline by explaining that this request initiates the job, while polling is done with get_case_timeline.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool: for initiating a live history fetch, with court-specific behavior (Supreme immediate, District sync, High Court pending). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare against other sibling tools, but the mention of polling via get_case_timeline and the 'no AI credits' note offer usage guidance.

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