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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns specific fields (caption, docket number, district, dates, judge, nature-of-suit code) and notes no API key is required. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description adds expected output context beyond the structured metadata.

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 two sentences and wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and then lists return fields and usage guidance. Every clause adds value, from the case-type list to the example use case, and there is no redundancy.

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 search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. It does not explain pagination or edge cases for date filters, but given the depth of the schema and the clear purpose, it is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it reiterates the 'party name' concept but does not elaborate on date filters or the limit parameter. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('US FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS'), and the query method ('by party name'). It enumerates the types of cases covered (contract, civil rights, ERISA, etc.), which clearly surpasses a generic restatement of the tool name. The example use case ('is this company being sued in federal court') further pins down its purpose.

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 explicitly gives a usage context: 'Use for "is this company being sued in federal court" and litigation exposure checks.' This directs an agent to when to call it. It does not explicitly name competitors or conditions not to use it, but the provided use cases are clear enough to guide selection among the siblings like federal_civil_recent.

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