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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the source (PD5), the required credential (key), cost (free with usage limits), and the answer scope/format (Court decisions only, with references, weight, and confidence). It does not detail rate-limit specifics or how 'key' is bound, so it falls short of 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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the first-person 'I want an explanation...' framing and the trailing credential/cost/source metadata read like boilerplate. It is compact but not maximally economical.

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 one-parameter Q&A tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers scope, source, cost, and answer content, which is adequate. It still leaves gaps around what the credential entails and what the response actually looks like, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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?

There is a single parameter ('question') with 0% schema description coverage and only a minLength constraint. The description frames it as 'my question' but adds no format, scope, or length guidance beyond what the schema already implies, so it barely compensates for the documentation gap.

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 function: it answers a legal question using the Court's (Peregrini's) past decisions only, returning references, weight indications, and a confidence assessment. It implicitly distinguishes itself from received-law research (routed to counsel under PD5) and from search-style siblings, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that 'received-law research is available through counsel under PD5' hints that non-Court authority is out of scope here, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many ask_*/search_reports siblings.

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