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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: credential requirement (key), cost (free), and a rate limit (up to 20/day outside a case), plus the governing rule (Rule 4.10) and that the Court grades the source info. It stops short of describing what a successful or rejected tender returns, but covers auth, cost, and throttling well.

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-loads the scenario, then the core action, then the failure consequence, then structured Credential/Cost/Source metadata. Slightly unusual first-person framing but no filler, and the operational facts are compactly placed.

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 tool with a nested provenance object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition supplies the auth, cost, rate-limit, rule reference, and the critical omission consequence. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the only gap being expected return/outcome behavior.

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 71%, so the schema documents most fields itself; the description's mention of 'the exact passage, its reference and where it came from' maps to text, citation and provenance without adding syntax beyond the schema. It does add consequence semantics (absent text ⇒ argument/G0), which is a modest value-add over the schema.

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: submitting the exact passage, its reference and provenance to a court that does not already have it. Clear operation, though it doesn't name which siblings (propose_authority, lookup_authority, matter_authorities) it differs from, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Provides the key usage consequence – without the passage the point is an argument rather than a supplied source – which effectively tells the agent when the tool is required. But it never contrasts with alternatives such as propose_authority or lookup_authority, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance is only implied.

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