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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the sort order ('Newest first') and the breadth of the record set (guidance through settlements), but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or how empty queries behave.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads scope and returned fields, the second front-loads ordering. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the default sort, which is the information an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing pagination or how a no-parameter call behaves (all filters optional), a minor gap for a 3-param search tool.

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 `kind`, `limit` and `query` are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum values, default of 10, max of 50, and the 'all words must appear' semantics. The description's field list refers to outputs rather than parameters, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; 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?

The description names the specific resource (lawsuits, rulings, settlements, regulatory actions over AI training data) and enumerates the fields returned (parties, claim, amounts, outcome, status, source), which is far more specific than the tool title alone. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_deals and search_prices, though it never states the verb 'search/filter' explicitly, leaving the retrieval action implied by the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when another tool (e.g. check_software_terms) would be a better fit, and no statement of prerequisites. The only contextual clue is 'Newest first', which describes ordering rather than when to invoke this tool.

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