get_judgments

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (array ordered by timestamp with verdict, score, criteria, confidence) and edge case (empty array). No mention of performance or side effects, but it's a read operation.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then linking logic, return format, use cases, and edge case. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format adequately. Covers verdict, score, criteria, confidence, and ordering. No pagination details, but likely unnecessary. Enough for agent to understand tool's output.

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 only parameter receipt_id has 100% schema coverage. The description adds clarity by distinguishing it from judgment receipt ID. This prevents misuse.

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 (retrieve), resource (judgment receipts), and the input (receipt ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like judge_receipt (creates) and get_receipt (gets receipt itself).

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 specifies use cases: review evaluation history, compare judgments, audit AI quality. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, but the positive usage is clear.

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