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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the scope (federal cases, published opinions) and the inclusion of docket records without written opinions, which goes beyond the annotations. This extra context about data coverage earns a 4.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a short usage directive. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes no filler, but the long enumerations make it somewhat dense; it is reasonably concise for the tool's complexity.

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 responsibility of explaining returns, and it does so by enumerating the key components: cases, opinions, outcome breakdown, notable opinions, and docket count. It also clarifies the distinction between published opinions and docket records. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for both parameters, including the note that limit affects only example opinions, not totals, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'return' and names the resource ('employer/company name') plus the specific outputs: distinct federal cases, opinions, outcome breakdown, notable opinions, and docket count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_attorney_track_record by focusing on the employer's track record. This is a clear purpose.

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 includes an explicit usage statement: 'Use this when a user names their employer and wants that company's litigation history + footprint.' This gives clear context, though it does not name alternatives or negative conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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