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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds scope context instead: Colombia-only coverage, exact corpus size (5,483 minutes / 2,858 cases), the session date range, and the fact that each minute is ~210 chunks and 87% of Colombia's index. It does not cover result ordering or pagination behavior, but the essentials are there.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with what a record contains before the exclusion/exclusivity point. The corpus statistics sentence is slightly heavy but earns its place by justifying the separate endpoint. No filler.

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 11 optional parameters, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: geographic scope, corpus scale, and the relationship to list_regulations. Ordering and pagination semantics are left implicit, a minor gap for a list tool that supports cursors.

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% and every parameter (q, board, decision, dates, cursor, case_number, requires_label_update, deprecated country_id) is documented in the schema itself, so this is the baseline case. The description adds no filter syntax or combination guidance beyond what the schema already carries.

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 a specific resource (committee minutes) and enumerates exactly what each record contains — board, minute, case (applicant, composition, dosage form), decision, and label-update flag. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_regulations, so an agent can classify it without opening the schema.

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 names the alternative tool (list_regulations) and states why these records are not there by default, which is precisely the decision an agent faces. It also routes follow-up work: 'Use `id` for the full concept and background text,' pointing at the per-record detail tool.

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