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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about coverage depth, local-rule inclusion, and the court directory. It does not describe return format or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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 action and then adds useful coverage detail. However, it is a dense single paragraph that repeats long enum lists already documented in the schema, reducing conciseness.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, valid rule sets, local-rule parameters, and coverage limits well. It does not explain the return shape in detail, but the tool's purpose and boundaries are otherwise sufficiently 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples of county slugs and court identifiers and by explaining that county and court are used to include local rules. It does repeat the rule set and court identifier lists already present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the deadline types 1Court can calculate for one rule set.' It also enumerates valid rule sets and explains local-rule scoping, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_rule_sets or calculate_deadline, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It explains when to add county or court parameters to include local rules and clearly states that other states' deadlines are not covered. That gives useful usage context and a coverage boundary. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this one.

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