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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds concrete behavioral details: ordering by newest/oldest, filtering by suit/court, next_cursor pagination, and a 25-per-call cap. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences with the main purpose first, then filters, then pagination and limit. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers selection criteria, ordering, pagination, and result cap. It doesn't describe the case object fields or accepted sort/filter values, but those are not essential for deciding whether and how to call it.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies sort (newest/oldest), filters (court, nature_of_suit), and pagination (cursor, limit cap of 25). The required 'slug' is inferable from the tool name, though exact accepted values and defaults are not fully specified.

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 names a clear action ('List'), target ('public cases linked to a company'), and optional ordering/filters. The company-scoped public-case scope distinguishes it from get_case and search_cases, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need a company's linked public cases, and pagination behavior is stated. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools like search_cases or get_case.

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