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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes status and judge counts, but it does not disclose details like pagination, data freshness, or whether the optional status filter affects the response. With annotations covering the main risk, a 3 is appropriate.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary context. It communicates the resource, scope, and key output fields efficiently.

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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the optional 'status' parameter filters the listed courts, but the schema already documents that, so nothing critical is missing.

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 sole parameter 'status' is already documented as a filter with enumerated values. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the mention of 'status' in the return context could briefly conflate output with the filter parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), resource ('courts'), and scope ('all'), with additional output details ('status and judge counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_court_holidays and search_judges.

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 implies when to use it—when an agent needs an unfiltered list of courts with status and judge counts—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides implied usage context but no exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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