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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'Free (0 credits)' and 'every row carries its licence.' There is 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct useful information: what is listed, how to filter, and example questions plus cost. It is slightly wordy with the trailing ellipsis and quoted examples, but well organized and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description compensates by stating the row content ('authors, topics, and the Creative Commons licence') and that every row carries its licence. It could more explicitly describe default return behaviour with no filters, but the optional-parameter schema and examples cover most of what an agent needs.

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 fully documents topic, licence, and limit. The description reinforces this with example queries and filter semantics, but does not materially add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('List') a concrete resource ('free CALI eLangdell Press law-school casebooks and course materials') and details the content (authors, topics, Creative Commons licence). It clearly reads as a listing/filtering tool distinct from sibling tools like elangdell_book or elangdell_search, even without naming them explicitly.

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 usage context by showing the two supported filters ('topic word or licence id') and answering example questions, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, stopping short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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