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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default 5-year filing window and the shape of the result (IDs plus report_url). It doesn't cover pagination or ranking/ordering of hits, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches, the default scoping constraint, and what comes back. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (IDs and report_url). Combined with rich annotations and 80% schema coverage, an agent has nearly everything needed; only ordering/pagination of hits is unspecified.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents year, limit and query well. The description's mention of the year window and searchable key types largely restates what the schema says, adding little syntax or format detail beyond it. 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resources (US court cases, attorneys, judges) plus the searchable keys (name, case name, case number). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the get_* siblings by noting it returns IDs to feed get_case, get_attorney and get_judge.

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?

Gives a clear entry-point workflow: search here, then use the returned IDs with get_case/get_attorney/get_judge. It also warns that cases are limited to the latest 5 filing years unless year is set. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling get_* tool over this one, but the context is clear.

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