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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add real behavior: results are ordered descending, the limit defaults to 50, and queries that exceed about 5 seconds are aborted with an error. Return format, pagination, and match semantics (case sensitivity of partial names) remain undocumented.

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?

Everything is packed into a few dense clauses with no waste: purpose first, then parameter rules, then the timeout caveat. Each sentence adds information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 six-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it documents defaults, formats, the enum, ordering, and timeout behavior. It could still say what the response rows contain (group key plus count) and whether partial names are case-insensitive.

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 define all six parameters, and it does: court/category accept a code or a partial name, date_from/date_to use YYYY-MM-DD and refer to the decision date, group_by accepts court|category|both, and limit ranges from 1 to 200 with a default of 50.

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 operation: counting decisions grouped by court and/or category, sorted descending. It is clearly distinguishable from search_decisions or get_decision, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'stats' tool, so the agent must infer the difference.

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 notes that every parameter is optional and that courts or categories can be passed as a full code or a partial name, which implies the tool is used for exploratory aggregation. However, it never says when to choose this tool over 'stats' or 'search_decisions', and it gives no guidance on resolving court codes via list_courts.

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