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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the MCP cannot write to disk so persistence is the caller's job, and long documents are paginated via truncated/next_offset requiring ordered appending. The readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive profile is already fully covered by annotations, so no contradiction and no redundancy penalty, but permissions or rate-limit behavior is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the key routing decision ('Optional. If your client can save files locally...') and nearly every clause carries information. It is a dense single block with several ideas packed together, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is little filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (filename, format, bytes, document, note) plus the pagination protocol and the no-disk-write caveat. For a 7-parameter tool with 0 required params, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining parameter interaction (citation used when cluster_id is absent, case_name to resolve citations newer than the reporter index, jurisdiction required for statutes/rules) and the append-in-order rule for offset.

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 verb+resource (export/save a readable copy of a case or statute) and explicitly positions itself against siblings: 'otherwise use get_case / get_statute as before'. The description also enumerates exactly what the exported artifact contains (caption, headings, footnotes, star-page markers, links).

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 the selection condition ('If your client can save files locally and you want a readable copy') and the negative case ('otherwise use get_case / get_statute as before'). It also gives per-resource invocation routes (cluster_id or citation for cases; jurisdiction + citation for statutes) so the agent knows which sibling semantics to mirror.

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