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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the answer's basis (Court's decisions only), added metadata (references, weight, confidence), access constraints (received-law through counsel), credential requirement (key), cost/usage limits, and source (PD5). It does not state whether the output is cited verbatim, linked, or paginated, but for a read-only Q&A tool this is strong disclosure.

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 content is front-loaded with the core purpose and answer characteristics, then usage, credential, cost and source. It is somewhat dense with multiple short clauses, but every clause carries operational information and 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 one-parameter, read-only research tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output characteristics, usage context, credential, cost and source. The main remaining gap is comparative routing among sibling tools like ask_magistrate or read_judgment.

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 schema already documents the single 'question' parameter including its length and scope. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond reinforcing that answers are based only on the Court's decisions, so the 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 a specific verb and resource: it answers a question from the Court's earlier decisions, with references, weighting and confidence. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'ask_magistrate' or 'read_judgment', which may also surface Court decisions.

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 provides a concrete use case ('I want an explanation of what Peregrini's past decisions say about my question') and notes that received-law research is available through counsel under PD5. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the siblings.

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