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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the truncation cap (~40,000 chars) and the body_truncated/body_chars_total flags that signal when the body is longer. It does not describe auth or rate limits, but the truncation disclosure is a strong addition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured as a two-mode explanation. Every sentence earns its place: the default behavior, the rationale for the default, and the truncation caveat for the full mode.

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 structure need not be re-explained. The description rounds out the tool by explaining the two sections, the default, and the truncation behavior. It could mention where the case_id comes from (search/lookup/graph results) since that routing context is genuinely useful for an agent.

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 67%, so the schema already documents case_id and section reasonably well. The description reinforces the section semantics and adds the summary-vs-full rationale beyond the schema's terse enum descriptions. It does not explain response_format, but the schema enum covers the two values.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch one judgment by id') and immediately distinguishes the two modes via the section parameter. The description makes it clear this is a single-record retrieval, distinct from the list/search/graph siblings.

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?

Explicitly advises reading section='summary' first to judge relevance cheaply, and reserves section='full' for when the body text is needed. This is a clear when-to-use-which pattern with a cost-aware rationale, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives like caselaw_search.

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