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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool returns an eId and preview line for every paragraph, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the usage trigger. Every sentence provides necessary information: what it does, when to use it, and how it fits with other tools. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and relationships to related tools. It even includes the output format (eId + preview line), making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'slug' parameter with an example. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the slug ('Call case_law_search FIRST to get the slug'), which is not in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the workflow hint lifts it to 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 states 'get the paragraph navigation index (eId + preview line for every paragraph)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning judgment_get_paragraph for full text and case_law_grep_judgment for content search.

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 says 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug and want the paragraph navigation index', and provides a clear workflow: call case_law_search first to get the slug, then pass an eId to judgment_get_paragraph or use case_law_grep_judgment. This gives both when-to-use and alternatives.

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