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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing that the text is exact and untruncated, that long judgments are paged via offset, and that the limit has a default and maximum.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling differentiation, then follows with a compact Args section. Every sentence adds useful information about what the tool returns or how to page through results.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: exact-text behavior, sibling distinction, paging guidance, and all parameter meanings.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explains authority_id as a canonical ID with an example, offset as a 0-based character offset with default 0, and limit as a character count with default 8000 and max 50000.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the complete, untruncated judgment text by character offset. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_authority_paragraphs, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative sibling tool and explains the key selection condition: get_authority_paragraphs serves pre-processed chunks that may skip or truncate text, while this tool returns exact full text. It also explains how to page through long judgments by advancing the offset.

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