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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting the safety baseline. The description adds value by labeling the tool an 'Authoritative source for UK judgment metadata,' providing data reliability context beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 long, with the most important usage instruction front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, workflow, and authority—with no redundant or irrelevant text.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers when to use it, how to obtain the slug, and how it fits into a larger workflow. It leaves no significant gaps for the agent to resolve.

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 the parameter 'slug' fully described and examples provided. The description only references 'judgment slug' without adding new format or syntax details, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving judgment metadata (parties, judges, neutral citation, court, dates) given a slug. It distinguishes from sibling tools like judgment_get_index (paragraphs) and judgment_get_paragraph (individual paragraphs) by specifying the metadata focus.

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?

Explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' statement provides a clear precondition (having a slug) and the need for metadata. It also outlines the workflow: call case_law_search first to get the slug, then judgment_get_index, then judgment_get_paragraph, which guides the agent on sequencing and when alternatives are appropriate.

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