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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns excerpts with source_url, which is useful behavioral info. However, it doesn't detail any limits (beyond schema's max=5), rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It's a read-only search tool, but the description doesn't explicitly state that; still, it's implied sufficiently for a 3.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides value: what it searches, when to use it, and what it returns. No wasted words.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, usage context, and return format. Minor gaps exist (e.g., Persian query requirement is only in schema, not description), but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage is 50% (query is described, limit is not). The description adds some context for the query ('how courts have actually decided an issue') but does not explain the limit parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the gap in schema coverage, leaving the limit parameter's purpose unclear from the description alone.

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 opens with 'Search 31,000+ Iranian court rulings and آرای وحدت رویه (binding precedent)', clearly stating the verb (search) and resource (court rulings and binding precedent). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_law_articles and search_advisory_opinions by focusing on court decisions. The title also provides a bilingual clarification.

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 'Use when the user asks how courts have actually decided an issue, or for precedent supporting a position,' which gives clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it misses the full 5-point criteria for explicit alternatives.

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