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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it searches federal district court dockets and returns only the existence of a prosecution, not the indictment or any filed document. This is exactly the kind of limitation an agent needs to know.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays economical. The final caveat about returning existence rather than documents earns its place, though phrases like 'no API key' add only marginal value for tool selection.

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 5-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it names the source, the query target, the returned fields, and the key limitation. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but those are not critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that search is by defendant name, but it does not add detail about limit, court, or date filters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: finding US federal criminal prosecutions by defendant name. It further narrows scope to federal district court dockets and 'United States v.' captions, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling federal_criminal_recent.

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 states intended use cases: checking whether a person or company has been federally charged, background checks, counterparty checks, and enforcement research. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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