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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: hourly refresh cadence, newest-first ordering, and the 2026-01-01 coverage floor — all things an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose and source lead the sentence, followed by the return-field inventory and then use cases — a sensible front-loading. The field list is long but each item (neutral citation, docket number, authoring judge, disposition) is materially useful for judging whether the response fits a need.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating the returned fields and link. Combined with the coverage window and refresh cadence, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/limit interaction with ordering is left to the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents court, limit, since and include_syllabi fully. The description implies court scoping and date filtering but adds no format or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('newest Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Court of Appeals opinions, newest first') and the backing source (the Arkansas Judiciary's official opinions archive). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ark_opinion and ark_search_opinions, which imply single-document and search semantics rather than a recency feed.

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 supplies concrete trigger phrasings ('what did the Arkansas Supreme Court decide this week', 'latest Arkansas Court of Appeals opinions', 'recent ... since a date') that map cleanly onto the since/court parameters. It does not explicitly name ark_search_opinions as the alternative for historical queries, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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