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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses the return format, that no credential is required, and that the call is free. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. an unmatched or malformed citation) or confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Read'.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return value in the first sentence, with the usage condition right after. The trailing sentence 'every tool is served by name' is cryptic and pays little rent, keeping it out of the top band.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, the credential requirement, and cost. Only the failure modes for an invalid citation are left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'citation' parameter with format examples and source tools, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing beyond a loosely synonymous term, 'reference number', which does not extend or clarify the schema's 'neutral citation exactly as written'.

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+resource ('Read a Court decision') and immediately describes the return shape ('short summary followed by the judge's full reasons'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like read_instrument or check_record without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition ('Use it when: I have a decision's reference number and want to understand its reasoning') and points to find_tool for follow-up steps. It does not name a competing sibling that handles the same decision content, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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