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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by describing the returned record shape (slug, title, description, published/updated dates, FACTS sourcing flag) and the availability of translated witness guides. It does not discuss pagination or result-size behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its metadata before the language note. The first sentence is dense with an enumerated field list, but every element is informative and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple, read-only, single-optional-parameter index tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, the language variants and their scope, and the domain context (Nevada practice, FACTS rules) an agent needs. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 enum is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantics behind the values: non-English codes apply specifically to translated witness guides, and the parameter is passed to 'list those' rather than to translate any guide.

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 names a specific resource (the firm's long-form guides on depositions and Nevada court reporting) and explicitly frames the tool as an 'Index', which cleanly separates it from the singular wrs_get_guide sibling. It even enumerates the metadata each entry carries (slug, title, description, dates, FACTS sourcing flag), so the agent knows exactly what kind of listing this is.

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 gives one concrete usage rule — pass language to retrieve translated witness guides — but never states when to choose this index over wrs_get_guide or wrs_search, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied (browse the catalog first) rather than spelled out.

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