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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing that the operation is keyless, produces one row per company x jurisdiction, includes true case counts and source links, and carries a $0.03/call cost. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the annotations already cover safety, so this is sufficient.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each additional sentence supplies actionable details (keyless access, output shape, cost). There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool has a moderately complex I/O profile, but the description covers the purpose, jurisdictions, output format, security model, and pricing. Since the schema already documents all four parameters and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for a caller to understand what will happen, including the one-row-per-company-jurisdiction behavior.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description needs no additional parameter details. The description's 'one row per company x jurisdiction' mirrors the schema's explanation for the companies parameter, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') and a specific resource ('a company for litigation history') and names three concrete jurisdictions (US federal dockets, UK case law, Polish judgments), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sanctions-screening. It also notes output structure (one row per company x jurisdiction) and keyless access, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the description gives clear context that this tool is for litigation-history screening across specific jurisdictions, which implies it's not for sanctions checks or general company lookups. The inclusion of jurisdictions and court types makes the applicable use case obvious, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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