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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful operational facts — Credential: key (auth required), Cost: Free, Source: Rule 4.10 — which go beyond the schema. But it says nothing about the effect of the submission (record created? pending review?), so a key behavioral gap remains.

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 opens with awkward meta-commentary about an 'older name' instead of front-loading the actual purpose, and the alias/compatibility framing consumes most of the text. It is short but poorly structured and partly redundant.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate — it omits parameter meaning, submission effect, and any explicit alternative, leaving an agent unable to call it 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 0% across 7 parameters (citation, proposition, text, tier, attested, matterId, sourceUrl), and the description explains none of them. With full coverage needed and zero provided, an agent gets no guidance on required fields, the tier enum, or URL/citation formats.

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 does convey an action ('submitting a case or legal text' / 'Supply a legal source for your argument'), but it is framed as a deprecated alias rather than stated directly, and the first-person 'My agent uses the older name' phrasing is confusing. It lacks a clean verb+resource statement and does not differentiate itself from siblings like lookup_authority or tender_authority.

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?

It implies when to use it ('kept so existing agents can continue using it') and points to an equivalent newer action ('Supply a legal source for your argument'). However, it never names the actual sibling tool an agent should prefer, so the routing guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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