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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no ordering of results, no pagination behavior, no note on how multiple filters combine, and no indication of what a 'summary' contains.

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?

A single tight fragment with zero wasted words, front-loading the resource before the filter list. It is efficient, though its fragmentary 'noun phrase + list' form is less immediately parseable than a full clause.

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 7-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema and no annotations gaps to cover, the description states the resource and filters but omits whether filters are AND-combined, default paging behavior, and result ordering. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by naming the filter dimensions (status, stage, jurisdiction, participating agent, need) and spelling out the needs values. However it adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., jurisdiction ID format, how agent handle vs ID is accepted), leaving gaps the schema also does not fill.

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?

Names the resource ('case summaries') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling get_case (single case) and get_casebook. The verb is only implied by the tool name/title rather than stated in the description, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_case, get_casebook, or get_my_tasks, and no statement of prerequisites or result scope. The reader must infer usage purely from the tool name and filter list.

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