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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the corpus shape (about 30 short answers, each citing a CPR rule/practice direction/statute, plus glossary and forms guide with official versions and filler tools), which tells the agent what kind of result to expect.

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 dense sentences, purpose and scope front-loaded before the topic and platform inventory. It is list-heavy but every clause maps to something the agent needs (coverage, sources, question types).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still explains the result content (cited short answers, glossary, forms/precedent guide) and the intended question types. Nothing critical is missing for a single-parameter lookup tool; only result-count or pagination behavior is unstated.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented with two examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that the query is plain-words triage of question types but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (answers/searches) and resource (legal costs help: short answers, glossary, court-form guide) with concrete topic coverage (budgets, Part 36, settlement, detailed assessment, interest). It implicitly separates itself from the calculator siblings by being a Q&A/glossary lookup, but never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

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 positive routing with the exact question shapes it serves ('what is', 'when must', 'who pays', 'how do we', 'which form') and scopes usage to civil costs in England and Wales. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, even though the sibling calculators are the obvious complement.

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