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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, and the description adds meaningful context by stating the results include official source URLs and the last time Court Rules checked the source. This gives an agent useful expectations about data provenance and freshness beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire definition with no filler: one states the action and filters, the second states the return value. The primary purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with five optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and the description covers the return value despite there being no output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not specify how filters combine or whether ranges are inclusive.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and format. The description groups parameters into filter dimensions (district, calendar year, date range) but does not add material semantics beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List court holidays and closure dates,' and immediately scopes the tool with filter dimensions and return content. No sibling tool covers holidays or closure dates, so it is clearly distinguishable without needing to inspect schemas.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever court holidays or closure dates are needed, optionally narrowed by district, year, or date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's unique domain and clear filter options make the intended usage unambiguous.

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