APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the 5,000 character limit on opinion text and identifies the data source (CourtListener). It also enumerates return fields. Missing safety annotations (read-only status) are implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, efficiently structured sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Get full text'), uses an em-dash to separate the return value details, and parenthetically notes the source and limit. Every clause 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately compensates by listing specific return fields (author, type, date, download URL, opinion text) and the character limit. For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, this provides sufficient context, though error conditions or authentication requirements are not mentioned.

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% ('Opinion ID from search results'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description doesn't add syntax details, format specifications, or examples beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to given the complete schema coverage.

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 ('Get') with clear resource ('full text of a US court opinion') and scope ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'legal.caselaw.search' (which finds opinions) by emphasizing ID-based retrieval, and lists specific return fields (author, type, date, download URL).

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 tool requires an ID ('by ID') and the parameter schema notes it comes 'from search results', suggesting a workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus search, or warnings about the 5,000 character limit truncation.

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