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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses critical runtime behavior: slow cache-miss latency of 30–120 seconds due to CAPTCHAs, a 6-hour cache with `cached` and `fetched_at`, merged results on ambiguous name searches, and the difference between a successful empty result and an error. The annotations are not contradicted; they are substantially enriched.

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 every section earns its place: required argument combos, sibling differentiation, attribution caveats, latency warnings, cache semantics, and error handling are all high-stakes for correct invocation. The core question and most critical constraint are front-loaded, and the formatting makes the guidance scannable.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is essentially complete: it covers argument requirements, defaults, output contents, attribution risks, performance expectations, caching, error handling, geographic scope, and public-record status. The output schema exists for return structure, so the description need not repeat it; nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full parameter burden and does most of it well: `bar` OR both `first` and `last` is required, lone names and no-argument calls are rejected, and absent dates default to today. The main remaining gap is that the date format for `start`/`end` is never specified, which an agent would need to construct valid date strings.

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 the exact question the tool answers — an attorney's hearing calendar — and states the resource and accepted identifiers clearly. It also explicitly names its sibling `search_cases_by_attorney` and distinguishes the two, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting 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?

It provides explicit routing: "THIS IS THE TOOL FOR 'TODAY', 'TOMORROW', 'THIS WEEK' AND 'MY CALENDAR'" and warns against substituting `search_cases_by_attorney`, explaining why that tool's file-date filters answer a different question. It also gives concrete decision guidance — prefer the bar number, read `attributable`, and never present an `error` result as an empty calendar.

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