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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating 'Credential: none' and 'Cost: Free', and 'Shows' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or return format details, leaving some gaps.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose in the first two sentences. The final sentence efficiently packages credential, cost, and source. The first sentence is somewhat redundant framing but not wasteful enough to lower the score.

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, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what is returned (case counts and agent limits), credential requirements, cost, and source. It could be stronger by clarifying read-only behavior or output format, but the essentials are present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The schema is empty and there are no parameters to document, so the description need not add parameter semantics.

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 ('Shows') and resource ('how many cases have been filed, decided, or are waiting' plus agent limits). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but does not differentiate it from the sibling 'court_statistics' or explain when one should be chosen over the other.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selection, and no mention of alternatives such as 'court_statistics'. The opening sentence 'I want to know...' frames a user intent but does not constitute actionable usage guidance.

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