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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: SLA (≤25s p95), parallel fetching with per-source budget, quality scoring (20 pts per jurisdiction, +10 for signals, +5-10 for multiple sources), cross-case pattern recognition producing severity-ranked signals (P0-P2), and optional env var for rate limits. No contradiction with 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?

The description is long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then lists jurisdictions, output details, use cases, SLA, and quality scoring. It front-loads the most important information (what it does and key features). Some details like quality scoring could be considered secondary, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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?

Covers input params, output format (structured case records with classification, status, parties, URLs, snippets), quality scoring, SLA, use cases, auth (keyless), and rate limit enhancement options. Even though we don't see the output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. Complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (party_name with maxLength/minLength/example, date_from/to as ISO dates, jurisdiction defaults, async behavior). The overall description adds context about date range meaning and jurisdiction default. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description adds enough extra value to warrant a 4.

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 'Aggregate court filings, judgments and litigation records for a company or individual across five major legal jurisdictions', specifying a specific verb and resource, and lists jurisdictions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its multi-jurisdiction scope and specific use cases.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use when: due diligence on a counterparty, vendor risk assessment, competitive intelligence, regulatory exposure mapping.' Also mentions that all sources are public and keyless. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative tools among the many siblings.

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