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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that data is 'public' and emphasizes 'real court sanctions/orders', but does not contradict annotations. It provides some additional context about data source (same as website) but not rich behavioral details beyond what annotations cover.

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 purpose, no waste. The first sentence covers verb, resource, and search methods; the second adds nature (read-only, public) and source. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and clear annotations, the description is adequate. It explains what is searched, how, and the public nature. Absence of output schema is acceptable for a search tool. However, it could briefly mention that results are returned as a list, but not necessary given simplicity.

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 100%; both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds 'by court name, party/case name keyword, or free-text keyword' which partially aligns with schema but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Searches', the resource 'CitationSafe's database of real court sanctions/orders', and search methods 'by court name, party/case name keyword, or free-text keyword'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on sanctions related to AI-hallucinated citations, unlike sibling tools such as 'verify_brief' or 'is_this_case_real'.

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?

The description implies when to use (when searching for sanctions) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among sibling tools. It mentions 'Read-only, public data' as context but lacks direct comparisons to other tools like 'search_phantoms' or verification tools.

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