APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses data provenance (RECAP Archive/CourtListener) and implies read-only search behavior, but omits critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results include full documents vs. metadata.

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?

Extremely efficient three-sentence structure: main action with em-dash elaboration, filtering capability, and data attribution. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or tautology despite null title.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter search tool with simple schema. Covers purpose, scope, and provenance. However, lacking both annotations and output schema, the description should have indicated return value structure (docket entries vs. case metadata) or result limits to be complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation ('Search query', 'Court filter', 'Number of results'). The description reinforces the court filtering capability ('Filter by court') but adds minimal semantic depth beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Description specifies the exact action ('Search'), resource ('PACER/RECAP federal court dockets'), and content scope ('case filings, motions, orders'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings 'legal.caselaw.opinion' (judicial opinions) and 'legal.caselaw.search' (general case law) by focusing specifically on procedural docket documents.

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 usage through specificity—targeting federal court docket data from RECAP Archive—but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'legal.caselaw.search' or prerequisites like PACER account requirements. Data source mention ('From the RECAP Archive') provides contextual hint but not directive guidance.

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