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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about category counts and a snapshot date, but does not explain return format or freshness beyond that phrase.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. It is front-loaded with the core resource and coverage categories, though it reads as a dense noun phrase rather than a complete sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated in the description, and the tool is a simple read-only count operation. However, the description omits any explanation of the optional state parameter, leaving a meaningful gap for an otherwise simple 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?

The schema has one optional state parameter with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions the state parameter at all. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what state means for filtering, but it does not.

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 identifies that this tool returns Canonical Core counts for Judges, Courts, and Courthouses, plus biography, courtroom-rule, and analytics coverage. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_judges and get_court by focusing on aggregate directory counts rather than individual records.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_judges or get_court. It implies aggregate-count usage but does not state when-not to use it or name any sibling alternative.

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