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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees beyond those annotations: it does not invent a verdict, and empty reasons are allowed. This is valuable context that prevents an agent from hallucinating a rationale.

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, all carrying distinct information: the core action, the read-only nature, and the non-invention guarantee. No filler or repetition beyond the minor 'Read-only' echo of the annotation, which is negligible.

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 specialized tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key behavioral risk (not inventing verdicts) and the edge case (empty allowed). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds little beyond the schema, apart from clarifying that empty is allowed; this meets the baseline for a fully covered schema but does not go further.

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 verb 'Quote' plus the specific resource 'published filter or law reason for a refusal or filtered present' makes the tool's job unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from siblings like appeal or cite_law because it retrieves the official stated reason rather than challenging or citing law generally.

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 clearly states the use context: explaining or quoting the published reason for a refusal or filtered present. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to call it versus siblings.

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