get_judgment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds useful behavioral details: the data is fetched live, sections are supported, and large results are returned in chunks of 500–50,000 characters. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences convey the core purpose, accepted ID formats, an example, and the main paging/section features. No filler or repetition of schema details; it is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with rich schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description covers the essential calling concepts: ID forms, sections, offset, and character limits. It does not mention how `caseId` affects behavior or what the exact return structure looks like, but these are minor given the absence of an output schema and the clarity of the rest.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that `id` can be either an IPO document number or an OTK ZU reference, with an example, and by summarizing the section/offset/chunking behavior that maps to `section`, `offset`, and `maxChars` — including the 500–50,000 character range.

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 verb and resource: it fetches the full text of a judgment live from the official IPO. It also clarifies what `id` can be and gives a concrete example, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from the search/list siblings.

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 implies the usage context: use this when you have a specific ID or OTK reference and want the full judgment text. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `search` or `list_recent`, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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