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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses Credential: none, Cost: Free, the governing Source (Rule 4.10), and partial return behavior ('shows the best submitted copy and its assessment, where available'). That covers auth, cost, and output shape, which is strong for an unannotated tool, though it omits failure/not-found behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanics, then the credential/cost/source metadata in terse labeled fragments. The first-person framing is slightly unusual but costs little and the whole thing is well under the point of bloat.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context an agent needs: what it checks, what it returns when the source is missing, and the auth/cost posture. Only citation syntax and explicit sibling routing are absent.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter ('citation'), so the description must compensate. It implies the input is a case or legal text reference, which adds modest meaning, but gives no format, example, or accepted citation style for the required field.

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 checks a source's reference against the Court's collection to determine whether the agent must supply it. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic lookup tools, though it never names the obvious siblings (propose_authority, tender_authority, matter_authorities) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 'I want to cite a case... and need to know whether I must supply it' frames a plausible trigger condition, which is more than most. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never points to the competing tools (propose_authority, tender_authority) that handle adjacent authority work, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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