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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly focuses on domain behavior instead: the PD 47 para 4.2 'London rule' split routing. It discloses a conditional outcome rule beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe the shape of the returned answer.

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 core answer ('Says which court office deals with...'), with the conditional London-rule detail second. Dense with legal jargon but each sentence earns its place; 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (the correct court office) and the key conditional rule. Only minor gaps remain, such as not stating a default form or the general output format.

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 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties the 'form' enum to divergent routing outcomes (N258 to SCCO on CE-File, N254 staying local), which the schema alone does not convey. It stops short of explaining N252.

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 outcome verb (says which court office deals with a matter) and the exact resource (detailed assessment filing venue in England and Wales), naming the candidate destinations (local hearing centre/district registry vs SCCO). No sibling tool competes for this task, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

The domain context (detailed assessment, England and Wales, court named on the case) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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