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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'public, bounded, and link to canonical KnowJudges profiles,' implying safety and boundedness. It does not explicitly state read-only or idempotency, but the context of a search tool suggests it. The description adds value beyond the schema without contradicting any 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and criteria. The second sentence adds usage guidance and result traits. Every sentence is essential and well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, usage context, and result characteristics. It could be improved by briefly describing the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of judge names, courts, and slugs'), but it is still sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It mentions searching by name, court, state, county, or jurisdiction, which maps to the parameters, but the schema already describes each parameter clearly (e.g., 'Court name fragment', 'Judge name or other identifying search text'). No additional semantic value.

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 verb 'Find' and resource 'US judges', lists search criteria (name, court, state, county, or jurisdiction), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Use this before requesting a profile when the exact KnowJudges slug is unknown.' This directly differentiates it from get_judge_profile.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this before requesting a profile when the exact KnowJudges slug is unknown.' It also provides context that results are public, bounded, and link to profiles, which helps the agent decide when to invoke this vs. a profile retrieval tool.

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