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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-trivial context beyond them: the tool is "Keyless" (no auth needed) and returns matching numbers/titles rather than instruction text — a behavioral limitation worth stating.

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-loaded with the verb, resource, and an illustrative example mapping before the scoping caveat and next-step routing. It is a single dense block rather than clearly separated sentences, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 correctly fills that gap by stating what is returned (matching numbers/titles) and what to do next. Inputs, result shape, search scope, and auth status are all covered, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines query, set, and limit with defaults. The description adds real meaning beyond it by clarifying what `query` matches (instruction/verdict-form titles and series names, not bodies) and what CACI/CALCRIM mean in the `set` enum.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Find the official California jury instruction NUMBER for a claim, cause of action, or criminal charge by keyword", with concrete input->output examples ("breach of contract" -> CACI No. 303). It explicitly separates itself from siblings caci_lookup and calcrim_lookup, which serve a different step in the workflow.

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?

States the use case (keyword -> number), the follow-up path ("call caci_lookup or calcrim_lookup with a number for the full text"), and an explicit exclusion ("This is a title search, not full-text search over instruction bodies"), so the agent knows both when to pick this tool and when not to.

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