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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by describing the return content ('citations, outcomes, procedural stage, employers, claim types, damages, and links to the full opinion') and the quality-filtering behavior ('low-confidence and junk rows excluded'). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the given context is sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then return payload, then use case and quality filter. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields, stating the corpus size, quality filtering, and the grounding use case. The annotation openWorldHint is consistent with a live research corpus, and the description leaves no critical ambiguity about what the tool returns or when to use it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the main search dimensions (keyword, law, court, circuit, state, outcome, date) but adds no semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides via examples and descriptions. The 'keyword' and 'federal circuit' phrases map directly to existing properties without expanding their meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search a 140,000+ U.S. court-ruling research corpus by keyword, law, court, federal circuit, state, outcome, and date.' It also states the return payload ('published opinions with citations, outcomes, procedural stage, employers, claim types, damages, and links to the full opinion') and explicitly distinguishes its grounding purpose from sibling tools with 'Use this to ground any claim about how employment cases have been decided.'

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to ground any claim about how employment cases have been decided.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool (for evidence about case outcomes) and implies it is the primary research tool for rulings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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