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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: results are newest first, capped at 25 per call, pagination uses next_cursor, and invalid docket number formats are refused. This goes well beyond the schema and 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?

Two tight sentences carry all the essential information: accepted query forms, a concrete example, result ordering, pagination limit, and cursor usage. No wasted words, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

The description, together with the fully documented schema, covers everything needed to call the tool: query syntax, limit semantics, cursor usage, and pagination behavior. There is no output schema, and the return shape is not described, but the mention of next_cursor provides enough context for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the query format with an example, clarifying the docket-number-office-prefix requirement, and tying cursor to next_cursor for pagination. This adds practical value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches public cases by specific query types: caption words, 'A v. B', or a federal docket number with office prefix. It gives a concrete example and is distinct from sibling tools like get_case, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 explains what queries are accepted and that docket numbers without office prefixes are refused, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_case or get_case_docket. Sibling differentiation is absent.

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