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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds context beyond those: 'Returns static text; makes no court-portal request' discloses that no network/portal interaction occurs, and 'Calling this first just delays their answer' reveals the latency tradeoff of misusing the tool. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the capability statement, then gives the call condition, then the exclusion with alternatives, then the behavioral note. Every one of the four sentences earns its place; the length is justified by the routing nuance needed across 15 sibling tools.

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?

Given 0 parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, when to avoid it, what it does not do, and that no arguments are required. Nothing necessary is missing.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, which warrants a baseline of 4. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' confirming to the agent that invocation requires no input and that the schema's empty object is intentional, not a schema omission.

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 states the purpose with specific verbs and resource: 'what this Court Delta server covers, with example questions.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings by positioning it as the capabilities/help endpoint, explicitly naming lookup_court_case and search_cases_by_party as the tools to use instead for actual court queries. An agent can tell this apart from every sibling without opening their schemas.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('ONLY when the user asks what this server / connector can do, what data it has, or how to use it'), explicit when-not-to-use ('It is NOT a step toward answering a court question'), and names the alternatives with routing conditions ('skip this and call lookup_court_case / search_cases_by_party directly'). This is the model of usage guidance.

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