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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data provenance (CourtListener/Free Law Project), cryptographic attestation with a post-quantum signed settlement receipt, a verification URL, and a per-call cost of $0.50 USDC. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about output verifiability and cost implications.

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 appropriately sized (5 sentences) with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information: content, use cases, source, verification, and pricing. The only slight excess is the verification URL and price, but both are relevant for the agent's decision-making.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, use case, source, and cost. However, it lacks any guidance on the judge_name parameter format or what the response structure looks like. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail about the expected result would improve completeness.

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 0% description coverage and the only parameter 'judge_name' is just a string with length constraints. The description never mentions the parameter or explains what format the judge name should take (e.g., 'John Roberts' vs 'John G. Roberts'). With no schema descriptions, the description must compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 states it provides a 'Federal judge profile' with specific content (court positions, appointment history, political affiliation, education, opinion count), making it distinct from siblings like get_federal_case_law or get_party_litigation_profile. The verb 'profile' plus resource 'judge' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use when assessing litigation risk or evaluating judicial philosophy.' This provides clear context for when to trigger this tool, but it does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar needs.

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