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

The description is exceptionally transparent about behavioral quirks beyond the annotations: it warns that multiple locations may be returned, hours include lunch closures, absent parkingAttributes do not mean 'no parking', and source fallback leaves hours empty. It also confirms the readOnlyHint ('Read-only') and openWorldHint ('ABSENT MEANS NOT CLAIMED'). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 long but deliberately structured with clear sections: purpose, disambiguation, hours, parking, accessibility, source fallback, and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core question it answers. Minor redundancy in the repeated warnings about not guessing between courthouses makes it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 tool with subtle real-world pitfalls, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: return shape, multi-location handling, matching against hearing locations, lunch closures, parking semantics, accessibility semantics, source fallback behavior, and when to route to another tool. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields; the behavioral caveats are what matter and they are thoroughly addressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: it explains that `county` expects a value like 'Wake' and that `caseNumber` can be used to derive the county. The sole gap is that it doesn't discuss precedence or behavior when both parameters are supplied, and it doesn't give a caseNumber format example. Still, it compensates well for the schema's silence.

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 opens with a specific statement of what the tool provides: 'Which courthouse, where it is, when it's open, and where to park.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from case-related tools: 'THIS IS LOCATION INFO, NOT CASE INFO.' This clearly separates it from siblings like lookup_court_case.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'For "I have court on Tuesday — where do I go?"'. It names the alternative tool, lookup_court_case, for case info, and provides detailed disambiguation guidance involving upcomingHearings[].location. It even tells the agent when NOT to force a match and to show options instead.

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