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

Although annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful behavioral context: it searches by title/author/description and returns matching titles with authors, licence, and URL. It does not describe pagination or no-result behavior, but the annotations lower the burden significantly.

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 three sentences with no filler: search scope, return values, routing, and cost are each covered in a compact, front-loaded manner. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with rich annotations and a full schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what to search, what is returned, how to continue to a download, and the credit cost. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'words in a title, an author name or the description' largely repeats the schema's query description, though the examples ('Witt torts', 'income tax individuals') add a bit of practical flavor. The limit parameter is not given additional meaning beyond its schema description.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search the CALI eLangdell open casebook catalogue by words in a title, an author name or the description.' It includes concrete examples and also differentiates itself from elangdell_book by explicitly routing download requests to that sibling via a slug.

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 gives clear search context and tells the agent to 'pass a slug to elangdell_book for downloads,' which is good guidance for choosing between siblings. It does not explicitly mention when elangdell_titles would be preferred instead, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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