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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an empty gap means no instrument is stored for that forum, and omitting the forum triggers a follow-up prompt for the court. It does not cover permissions or any interactive fallback beyond the forum case.

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 with the return behavior front-loaded and no wasted prose. The phrasing 'Name the forum, or court "no"' is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly, but nothing is padded.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema and high schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the two non-obvious edge cases (missing forum, empty gap). It leaves unspecified how audience/document_type shape the returned guidance, but the schema largely carries that.

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 86%, so the schema already explains task, court, forum, audience, jurisdiction and document_type. The description's parameter remarks (forum naming, court 'no') largely restate what the schema fields already say, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 and resource: it returns the framework's notes for one jurisdiction plus which stored AI instruments apply to a task in a court or tribunal. That clearly separates it from get_framework and get_task_guidance, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives conditional input guidance ('Name the forum, or court "no" when no court is involved') and explains when the result is empty, but offers no explicit when-to-use-this vs. get_framework / get_task_guidance / get_precedent routing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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