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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the pack returns, how target_court adds binding/persuasive status, and how top_authorities controls result count. It does not discuss latency, limits, or result-size constraints, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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-loads purpose and return shape, then gives a compact argument list. For a 10-parameter tool, the length is appropriate and every section contributes useful information.

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 the 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers every parameter and explains the tool's output and purpose. It leaves out explicit sibling routing and some parameter formatting details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values further.

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 must carry the burden, and it does list all 10 parameters with meanings. It provides examples for domain, disposition, jurisdiction, and topic, and explains target_court's effect, though some entries like 'court: Court code to focus on' remain thinner than ideal.

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 ('Get a structured research pack on a legal area') and describes the return contents, including authorities, legal test elements, and usage examples. It distinguishes itself as the 'richest tool' for substantive research, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 clear usage context: use it for substantive legal research on a topic, and implies it is the comprehensive option by calling itself the richest tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_cases or get_authority_detail.

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