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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description notes the corpus-wide scope and the fields exposed, but adds no pagination, ordering, or freshness context beyond that; with an output schema documenting the return shape, there is limited extra behavioral value.

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 resource and payload, second sentence devoted entirely to routing guidance. No filler.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool whose return fields are documented by the output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or whether the court set is static.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or contradicted.

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 plus the payload contents (case counts, precedence ranks, binding relationships), which is concrete and non-tautological. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from taxonomy-style siblings like browse_taxonomy or list_topics, so it stops short of 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to discover valid court codes for filtering search_cases, research_pack, etc., and to understand the hierarchy. It names downstream consumers but offers no exclusions or guidance on when browse_taxonomy or list_topics would be the better choice.

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