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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: source_url/source carries the official mkri.id PDF link, and it instructs the agent to disclose once when source.verified=false that the text is unverified. That is behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Opens with the domain and the lanes, then the filter list, then examples, then the source-handling note – a sensible front-loaded order. The middle clause re-listing filters that the schema already documents is mildly redundant but not wasteful enough to drop below a 4.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description focuses on what structured fields omit – lane taxonomy, example queries, and the verified/unverified source caveat. It omits result pagination/clamping behavior, but that is minor.

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 schema already documents all nine filters with examples and semantics. The description largely restates the same filter names (reviewed_law, lane, amar, tahun, jenis_pengujian, dissent, hakim) without adding syntax the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Cari) and resource (putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi) and enumerates the case lanes (PUU, SKLN, PHPU, PHPKADA), which pins the scope precisely. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_legal or read_law, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it below a 5.

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 concrete example questions ('UU mana yang dibatalkan MK tahun 2024', 'putusan dengan dissenting opinion') that make the intended use obvious. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or points to an alternative sibling for other legal queries.

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