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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the auth prerequisite (connect + connect_verify), the partiality of the corpus (rulings not held are silently absent) and the deliberate refusal to infer finality (`unknown`). It does not describe error behavior or what happens on a bad case_no, but the important behavioral caveats are covered.

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?

Front-loads the auth requirement, then the resource, then usage, then caveats, which is the right order for an agent. The sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; the one waste is the parenthetical Lithuanian court names, which only lightly aid selection.

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 still explains the shape of the answer adequately (grouped by proceeding number, date-ordered, court level, `unknown` finality). What remains unstated is whether an empty or absent chain is reported as an error versus an empty result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds the decision rule for case_no vs proceeding_no and a worked example of arguments, which the schema alone does not spell out. The session and jurisdiction parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource: the held rulings of one matter from first instance through appeal to cassation, grouped by proceeding number and ordered by date with court level. It also concretely excludes cross-case citations by naming cited_by and citations_of as the tools for that job, so an agent can route without opening siblings.

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 explicit use cases (what later happened to a judgment; which lower decisions a cassation ruling reviewed) and explicit selection rules between the two entry parameters (case_no when you have a judgment, proceeding_no when you have the register number). It also names the alternative tools for a different question type.

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