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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds useful context beyond that: search coverage is limited to decisions from 2026-01-01 onward, results include a highlighted passage and link, and it points to ark_opinion for full text. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (limit is capped at 50).

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?

Front-loads the tool's purpose (full-text search, what it searches, date scope, source) and then covers results and the related tool. Reasonably tight, though slightly longer than necessary with parenthetical examples.

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?

A read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations. It covers what's searched, date scope, result format, and the sibling tool for full text. Would benefit from noting pagination or the exact maximum limit, but is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 all five parameters (court, limit, query, date_after, date_before) are documented in the schema. The description adds usage advice for the query parameter (use quotes for an exact phrase) which is helpful, but doesn't add format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions), with scope (decisions from 2026-01-01) and source (official archive). Clearly distinguishes from sibling ark_opinion by routing full-opinion reading to it.

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?

Explicitly names the related tool ark_opinion for reading the whole opinion, and gives concrete query examples with quoted phrases. Provides the condition (find opinions by subject/party/phrase) that selects this tool over alternatives.

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