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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is carried by structured data. The description adds that matching covers aliases as well as citations and case names, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result ordering, ranking, or truncation behavior beyond the limit cap.

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 the core action, followed by a routing sentence and a compact Args block. The examples earn their space by showing the accepted input shapes; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented despite zero schema coverage. The remaining gap is minor: no note on how results are ranked or how to treat an empty result set.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, defining 'q' with three concrete example formats ('Donoghue', '[2019] UKSC', 'Landlord and Tenant Act') and giving 'limit' a default and hard maximum of 25 that the schema omits (schema only declares default 10).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search for authorities by partial citation, case name, or alias'), which is more precise than the title. It distinguishes itself implicitly from resolve_citation (exact resolution) and get_authority_detail, though it never states the inverse case — that an exact citation should skip this tool.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('vague or partial reference') and names the downstream siblings (resolve_citation, get_authority_detail) in the correct order of operations. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it, e.g. for a complete, unambiguous citation.

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