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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it degrades per-section, including CourtListener-dependent alerts, when a source is unavailable. It also discloses the cost per call.

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 compact and front-loaded: use case first, then the data sources and degradation behavior, then required input and pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, components, degradation behavior, and required input, but with no output schema and four undocumented optional parameters, it leaves meaningful gaps. It also does not explain how optional parameters like court or days_back affect the snapshot.

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 0%, and the description only repeats that party_name is required, which the schema already states. It provides no semantics for court, days_back, company_name, or institution_name, leaving agents to guess their meaning from the parameter names alone.

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 the tool is for assessing litigation and enforcement exposure for a counterparty and enumerates the data components it fans in: litigation risk composite, new litigation alerts, federal court cases, FTC enforcement history, and OCC enforcement actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that individually cover these sources.

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?

It opens with an explicit use case ('Use when assessing litigation and enforcement exposure for a counterparty') and the composite structure implies when an aggregate view is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer the individual sibling tools instead, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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