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 real value beyond them: it enumerates the returned fields and discloses the access limitation that full text is only reachable through the signed-in firm connector.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope and search fields first, return shape second, full-text access caveat last. No repetition of the title 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-shape burden and does so by listing the exact fields (ids, titles, kinds, practice area ids, jurisdictions, law-as-at date). Combined with the full-text access note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 67%, with 'query' and 'area' documented in the schema itself (including an example area id). The description reinforces which document fields the query matches and mentions practice area ids among the return values, giving indirect context for 'area', but adds nothing for 'limit' beyond its schema bounds. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (the published precedent library), enumerates the content types covered, and names the fields searched (title, summary, when to use it). It is clearly distinguishable from fetch-style siblings by being a search over indexes rather than retrieval of a single precedent, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the entry point for finding precedents and that full text requires the signed-in firm connector. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'use get_precedent instead for full text' routing.

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