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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: exactly what payload comes back, and the important access constraint that the source text is only reachable through the signed-in firm connector (i.e. this tool returns metadata, not the judgment text).

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the enumeration of returned fields is dense rather than padded. The field list is long but each item is informative, and the access caveat is deliberately placed last so it doesn't bury the primary verb.

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 has to describe the return shape, and it does so item by item while also flagging the connector-based limitation. It stops short of stating failure behavior for an unknown or unpublished precedent_id, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that precedent_id comes from search_precedents. The description adds no further format, prefix, or provenance detail, so the baseline of 3 for a schema-documented parameter 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 and resource ("Returns one published precedent's details") and enumerates the fields returned (summary, authorities, AI-use guidance, licence, currency), which is far more specific than a tautology. It implies but never names the sibling it complements (search_precedents), so an agent relying on description text alone gets no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not clause, but the description draws one real boundary: the full precedent text is not here, it lives behind the firm connector. That implicitly tells the agent to use this tool for metadata and route full-text reads elsewhere, which is implied rather than stated guidance.

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