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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the data source (CourtListener), the post-quantum signed settlement receipt, and verification URL, all beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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?

Four sentences efficiently cover the core action, optional filter, source, attestation, and cost. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return fields (citation counts, court, date, excerpt) and provides source provenance. For a simple read-only two-parameter tool, this is largely sufficient, though pagination and error behavior are not mentioned.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that 'query' supports keyword or party name search and giving concrete court filter examples (scotus, ca2, dcd). It does not explain query syntax or court code format beyond examples, but that is enough for most agents.

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 opens with 'Federal court opinion search' and specifies the exact modes ('keyword or party name search') and return fields ('citation counts, court, date, and excerpt'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_federal_court_cases or get_case_law_synthesis by naming a unique source (CourtListener) and an attestation mechanism.

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 implies use for searching federal court opinions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_case_law_synthesis or get_citation_authority. There is no when-not-to-use or exclusion condition.

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