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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the tool never guesses, defines each outcome status (not_in_corpus, attested, known_missing, date_mismatch, court_mismatch) and explains the cited_by payload. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before trusting a result.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then status semantics, then an example; nearly every sentence carries operational meaning. It is dense and status-heavy but well ordered, with little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains return outcomes and the cited_by structure, and covers the disambiguation rule for docket collisions. An agent can call it and interpret results correctly without further information.

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%, so baseline 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: pass citations verbatim with court and date because those fields disambiguate repeated dockets. The worked example reinforces the exact input shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up German legal citations') plus the accepted citation forms (§/Article, Aktenzeichen, ECLI, Fundstelle) and batch limit. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search or getNorm, which retrieve documents rather than validate citations.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: 'find a decision by its docket' and 'check a citation before you state it'. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives (e.g. search, getNorm), so routing is implied rather than fully bounded.

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