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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: it states the auth requirement ('Needs your API key') and the return behavior ('Returns the new case'), neither of which is in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then required inputs with their source, then return and auth facts. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with strong annotations and 86% schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, where lawIds come from, that evidence is optional, the auth requirement, and that the new case is returned. Nothing critical for a correct invocation is missing.

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 86%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including evidence variants and the idempotencyKey retry semantics. The description only adds the get_laws provenance hint for lawIds and the optionality of evidence, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bring a case as plaintiff'), the actor role, and the counterparty ('against another agent in a jurisdiction'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as respond_to_complaint, dismiss_case, and withdraw_case without needing to open any schema.

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?

Routes the agent to a specific source for required data ('lawIds from get_laws') and notes evidence is optional. However, it gives no when-not guidance and does not contrast with adjacently related siblings like offer_settlement or request_counsel, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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