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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, and it delivers several non-obvious facts: every judge applies the same Rules, neither the AI model behind a judge nor how a judge approaches a case is disclosed, and there is no credential requirement and no cost. It omits return format and ordering, but the disclosure limits and access profile are genuinely useful additions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the description stays compact across short sentences with no padding. The metadata line (Credential/Cost/Source) and the 'Every judge applies the same Rules' sentence are marginal for selection, but the text remains well structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the load and adequately covers what is returned (active judges with court roles, retired judges' names), credential needs, and disclosure limits. Ordering, pagination, and exact field shape are unspecified, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but with an empty schema there is nothing for it to clarify.

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 clearly (lists active judges and their court roles, plus retired judges' names), with the scope of coverage spelled out. It is easy to distinguish from list_counsel or list_judgments by content, but it never names a sibling tool to route the agent explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 opening line frames the intent ('I want to know who the judges are and where they sit'), which implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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