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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches only 'active source documents' (excluding inactive ones) and 'Returns structured summaries with source provenance by default,' which informs the agent about filtering and output shape. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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 with no filler; the first sentence states scope and source constraint, the second gives when-to-use scenarios and default output behavior. The use-case list is long but each item is a distinct, searchable filing-rule category.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, topical scope, and default return shape, while the 100%-covered schema handles all 9 optional parameters. It is slightly incomplete only in not pointing to the most similar sibling (get_judge_rules) for judge-specific retrieval when a single judge's rules are needed.

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%, and each of the nine parameters has its own description, including enums for case_type, logic_type, and workflow_phase. The tool description does not need to restate parameter meanings; it adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search extracted court filing rules from active source documents') and enumerates concrete topics such as e-filing requirements, service, fees, courtesy copies, and rejection or cure windows. It clearly differentiates from enforcement-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_judge_rules despite overlapping on judge or courtroom preferences.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this for state and federal e-filing requirements...' covering a clear set of legal research scenarios. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives like get_judge_rules or check_compliance, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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