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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses credential: none, cost: free, and source: Rule 7.3A, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it performs no mutation, leaving some behavioral aspects to inference from 'Explains'.

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 four sentences and mostly informative, but the first-person opening ('Before I ask the Magistrate...') is redundant with the following sentence and could be removed. The remaining content is adequately 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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists what the explanation includes (required information, answer format, usage limits, refusal reasons) and gives credential/cost/source. Output format is not described, but this is a minor gap for a help tool.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly does not discuss any inputs.

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 purpose: 'Explains how to ask about a planned action, contract terms or chances in a case.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask_magistrate' by being explanatory rather than action-performing. The first-person opening sentence is slightly confusing but the core purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'Before I ask the Magistrate for guidance I want to know...' implies the tool should be used prior to asking, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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