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

The description and schema go well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing keyless access, cost per call, output row structure, true case count behavior, approximate count limits, unsupported-jurisdiction handling, and concurrency behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists; the rich behavioral details compensate for any ambiguity.

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: the first sentence states the core function, the second adds output granularity and data authenticity, and the final clause covers access and pricing. Every clause carries meaningful information without 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 combination of description and schema provides a thorough picture: output structure (one row per company × jurisdiction), core fields (count and links), budget skipping behavior, unsupported jurisdiction handling, and concurrency semantics. Although no output schema exists, the prose is sufficient for a moderately complex tool; a small gap is the lack of explicit field names in the main description, but schema descriptions fill this.

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%, with each parameter (companies, jurisdictions, maxCasesPerRow, maxConcurrency) having detailed semantic descriptions. The main description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately identifies the tool's purpose: screening a company for litigation history across US federal dockets, UK case law, and Polish court judgments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sanctions-screening or counterparty-risk-rollup by specifying the exact legal jurisdictions and output behavior (one row per company × jurisdiction with counts and 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?

The description clearly implies the use case—screening litigation history—but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like sanctions-screening or counterparty-risk-rollup. The schema hint about unsupported jurisdictions provides some exclusion context, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.

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