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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the return fields (judge name, slug, type, district, status), which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose sorting, default limits, or filtering nuances beyond the parameters. Given the annotation coverage, this is a reasonable but not exceptional disclosure.

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, tight sentence that packs the purpose and return fields without extra fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and the search dimensions. It lacks explicit mention of default limit behavior or pagination, but given the simplicity and the annotation coverage, it is generally complete. The agent can infer the output structure from the description, which is sufficient for a first call.

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%, meaning each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond restating 'by district, name, or type' which maps to the parameters. It does not explain limit semantics or any interdependencies, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('judges'), and specifies the search dimensions (district, name, type). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (e.g., search_filing_rules, search_enforcement_actions) by the subject matter, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and gives enough specificity for an agent to select it for judge-related lookups.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it is for general judge searching, but without stating comparisons to other search tools, an agent might not know when to choose this over search_filing_rules or others. Only the parameter names hint at usage, but that is not guidance.

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