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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing transparent degradation when partial CourtListener sources fail, plus the data source and 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage directive, and every sentence adds distinct value: usage, degradation behavior, and source/cost. 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 usage, source, pricing, and failure degradation, which is good for a two-parameter tool. However, there is no output schema and no indication of what the composite returns (e.g., score format, range, or interpretation), leaving a meaningful gap 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps party_name to 'party profile' and judge_name to 'optional judge analytics', adding some meaning beyond raw field names, but it does not explain parameter semantics in detail or clarify the docket-intelligence dependency.

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 states exactly what the tool does: synthesize litigation risk from party profile, docket intelligence, and optional judge analytics. This clearly distinguishes it from single-source siblings like get_party_litigation_profile, get_docket_intelligence, and get_judge_analytics.

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 explicitly says 'Use when synthesizing litigation risk' from specific inputs, giving clear context for selection. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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