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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that each result includes a reviewed-evidence-ledger flag and a classification, and by instructing the agent to prefer reviewed pages. It also explains the `case` constraint behavior. These are meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss pagination or result limits, which would have made it a 5.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary purpose, then gives usage sequencing, result-selection guidance, and the parameter constraint. There is no filler or repetition, and it remains readable despite carrying substantial operational detail.

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 tool's complexity (a search across court records with a result-selection policy and an optional case filter) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents return fields), the description covers the critical aspects: when to call, how to follow up, how to interpret results, and when the case parameter is mandatory. It does not explicitly discuss error handling, pagination, or query syntax, but these are either inferred or covered by the output schema, making it adequate.

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% (the schema provides no property descriptions). The description explains the `case` parameter in detail: it confines the search to a specific case id from list_cases and becomes required when multiple cases are held. However, the required `query` parameter is only implied by the phrase 'Search... for case facts' and is never explicitly described (e.g., format, free-text vs. structured). This is partial compensation for a low-coverage schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the court record for case facts, testimony, positions, rulings, and jury findings.' This clearly defines what the tool does and implicitly differentiates it from siblings like fetch (which retrieves documents) and list_case_topics (which enumerates topics). The additional instruction to call fetch on result IDs further clarifies the search-then-fetch workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this for every case-specific factual question' and provides the follow-up action: 'then call fetch on relevant result IDs before answering.' It also gives a conditional rule for the `case` parameter ('required once more than one case is held') and advises preferring reviewed pages over automatically extracted ones. This is direct, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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