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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return payload (signed text, digital signature, public verification key, checking instructions), states the credential requirement (none), and the cost (free). It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens on a mismatched signature.

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 return payload, then credential and cost. Every sentence adds information, though the first-person 'I want to check' phrasing is slightly unusual for a tool description.

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, the description correctly explains the return values, which is the main completeness requirement. However, the single required input (citation) is left entirely unexplained, leaving the invocation side incomplete.

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% and the sole parameter 'citation' is undocumented. The description never mentions the citation, its format, or how it identifies the judgment, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (verify a judgment copy against the Court-signed original) and even names what is returned (signed text, signature, public key, checking instructions). This distinguishes it from read_judgment/list_judgments, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 framing 'I want to check that a copy of a judgment is exactly the one the Court signed' implies the use case (you already hold a copy and want authenticity verification), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. read_judgment, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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