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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: 24h cache, no API key required, and the crucial limitation that most awards are confidential and private awards are inaccessible. These disclosures go beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured with clear headers, bullet points, and a note section. Every sentence contributes useful information, including audience, modes, limitations, and operational details. It is front-loaded with purpose and remains readable.

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 (three modes, multiple institutions, date filters, output schema), the description covers the key aspects: modes explained, data sources, confidentiality caveat, cache, and auth. It does not describe pagination or result formats, but an output schema exists and the core usage is clear.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by detailing each mode's expected query behavior (e.g., 'party_lookup — find awards by party name (searches 20 landmark public awards + JusMundi best-effort)') and listing what clause_check audits. This enriches the schema's generic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Commercial arbitration intelligence' and enumerates three distinct modes (party_lookup, institution_index, clause_check) with specific actions. It names the covered institutions and differentiates itself from potential sibling tools by specifying its unique scope and capabilities.

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?

The description provides clear context for intended users (litigation lawyers, M&A teams, etc.) and describes each mode explicitly. It also states an important limitation: 'Private awards are not accessible.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' so it falls short of a 5.

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