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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return shape { id, text } and the important behavior that text is null when no converted HTML exists, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately specifying return format and null behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only getter with one param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return value, and null behavior. It does not mention error handling, but given the low complexity, it is complete.

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 has a single required id (string) with no description. The description adds that id is the 'file id (judgment DIS id)', clarifying the semantic type. It does not provide format examples, but this partial compensation is valuable given 0% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a plain-text judgment for a Hong Kong court file given a file id (DIS id). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a document/judgment retrieval by id, unlike case retrieval (Hk_get_case) or listing (Hk_list_cases).

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?

No explicit comparison to sibling tools or when-not-to-use guidance. The intended use is implied: call this when you have a DIS id and need the judgment text. It does not clarify when to choose this over Hk_get_case or Hk_list_cases.

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