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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/non-destructive, and the description adds operational traits: per-call cost, cryptographic attestation with a verification URL, and the finding-level output shape. It does not disclose pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only search this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 first two sentences are dense and useful, but the attestation/payment sentence is relevant yet vaguely worded, and the example cuts off ('58 findi'), which looks like a typo. Overall compact enough, but not fully polished.

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?

For a 6-parameter search with no output schema, the description gives the broad filtering model and two return fields, plus cost and verification, but lacks result-shape completeness, enum/value domains, and limit semantics. An agent could call it correctly, but with enough ambiguity that it is not a fully specified contract.

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 only 33%, covering keyword and outcome; the description compensates by naming the other four filter dimensions, but it does not explain valid values for defect_family, claim_type, owner_id, or limit behavior. The example illustrates a use case but not parameter syntax or value domains.

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 use case ('researching tribunal precedent for a specific defect or claim type before filing or defending a construction claim') and a concrete return ('findings filtered by... with docket number and case name'). This clearly differentiates it from generic legal-research siblings like get_case_law_synthesis or get_federal_case_law.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger tied to tribunal precedent research for construction claims. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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