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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it only returns content that has crawled data, and lists return fields. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 lengthy due to parameter listing, but it is well-structured with a summary, usage conditions, parameter list, and return fields. It front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy with schema descriptions exists, but the structure aids readability.

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 26 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and noting the crawled-data constraint. It could be more specific about pagination behavior (limit/offset), but overall it is fairly complete.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description lists parameters with brief explanations (mostly 'Filter by X'), but also adds usage context (e.g., 'Returns only content that has crawled data') and lists return fields, adding value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair 'List documents in a jurisdiction', clearly stating the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_' tools that list other entities (e.g., list_authority_types) and from document retrieval tools.

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 lists 'Use this tool when:' conditions, providing clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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