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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains the 202/continuing:true async behavior for High Court, clarifies a continuation is not a judgment, names the required credential (party), and lays out the fee model including the 10%/50c cap, the fee-state endpoint, and appeal cost stacking. This is unusually thorough behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and exceptionally dense with actionable routing and cost information. The opening two sentences ('Ask the Court to decide the case. Asks the Court to hear the case.') are near-duplicative and could be merged, which is the only real waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return (a judgment published with a summary and the legal rule) and the interim async response. Combined with credentials, cost, and next-step routing, the agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter whose UUID meaning is fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates the timing ('call once pleadings close or on a default') rather than adding syntax or format detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask the Court to decide the case') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like appeal, plead, and read_judgment through the outcome it produces. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use it when: Both sides have had their chance to respond and I want a decision,' plus a 'Usually next: read_judgment, appeal' routing hint. The precondition (pleadings closed / default) is also given, so the agent knows both when to call and what to do after.

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