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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it covers binding precedent and returns excerpts with source URLs. Since there is no output schema, this return-format disclosure is valuable, though sorting or pagination behavior is not mentioned.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and purpose, then gives a use case, then states the output shape. 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 simple read-only search tool with two parameters, the description covers what it searches, when to use it, and what it returns. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many lookup/search siblings, but the phrase 'how courts have actually decided an issue' supplies enough context for an agent to route correctly.

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 query parameter is described in the schema as 'The legal issue, in Persian,' and the limit parameter is constrained to 1–5 with a default of 5, making its purpose inferable. However, the description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, and limit's semantics are not explicitly stated despite only 50% schema description 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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Search 31,000+ Iranian court rulings and آرای وحدت رویه (binding precedent).' It also signals what it returns, 'excerpts with source_url,' and distinguishes it from statutory or advisory-opinion tools by saying it covers 'how courts have actually decided an issue.'

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when the user asks how courts have actually decided an issue, or for precedent supporting a position.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name specific sibling tools or say when not to use it.

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