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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: that group inputs collapse to a single aggregate token and that a court_groups field appears in the result.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the group-resolution nuance. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the key returned field (court_groups) and explains the aggregate-token behavior, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. It leaves return shape only lightly sketched, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its own examples ('Florida', 'Eleventh Circuit', 'tribal courts', 'veterans'). The description reinforces that group names are valid inputs but adds no format, matching, or ambiguity-handling detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Resolve a court name to court_id values') and names the downstream consumer ('usable in the search_cases court filter'), which separates it cleanly from lookup siblings like find_case, find_citation, and find_authority.

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?

Makes the use case explicit: call this to obtain identifiers for the search_cases court filter, including whole groups like tribal courts or bankruptcy. It gives clear context but no explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion, so it stops just short of 5.

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