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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the answer modes, that guidance is unpublished, binds no judge and is kept only as a hash, that it applies only Court law and not national law, that it says nothing about operator authorisation, that answers under a Mandate go on the record (Mandate 2.3 clause 1B), and it states auth ('Credential: key') and throttling ('20 an hour per agent; one conduct question a day without a key').

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?

Information density is high, but the first-person scenario framing and the doubled 'private answer now / answers at once' construction cost words. The most decision-relevant facts (answer modes, credential, rate limit, retention) are buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the modes, the intake/retention model, credentials, cost and record-keeping consequences well. It leaves some gaps: nothing on what the returned answer contains or how to retrieve the recorded question and answer, and nothing on the protocol/argument/evidence parameters.

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 coverage is 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the conduct/terms/prospects mode mapping and the shape of facts and questions. The description adds mode-level meaning but nothing for protocol, argument, claim or evidence beyond what the schema text already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 three concrete capabilities: ruling on proposed conduct (lawful / unlawful / qualified / declined), reading the terms of a document you are asked to deal on, and giving the prospects of a claim on stated facts — matching the conduct/terms/prospects enum. It is specific about the resource and outputs, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as ask_court or guidance_options.

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 gives clear triggering context ('I am about to do something and I am not sure the law of the Court allows it') and explicit exclusions ('advice on your chances is unavailable while you are involved in an undecided case'). The no-key allowance before enrolment is called out. No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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