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 substantive behavioral context beyond that: the return is an ordered chain with appointing president, commission date, and how service ended, plus named predecessor/successor. It doesn't discuss ambiguity or error handling, but is solid given annotation coverage.

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 core action and result, then constraints, then illustrative questions. The trailing quoted query examples are slightly redundant but earn their place by anchoring intent. No wasted preamble.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so well (ordered chain, dates, predecessor/successor). It's essentially complete for a read-only lookup; minor gaps remain around disambiguation behavior and result size limits.

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 reiterates the name-or-seat_id choice and the 'add court if the surname is common' hint, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Trace who held a US federal judgeship (Article III seat) before and after a judge.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the FJC biographical directory as the source and describing the seat-chain output, which is clearly different from fjc_judge_lookup or fjc_judges_by_court.

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?

Provides clear selection context: give a judge name or an FJC Seat ID, and it notes the seat_id is 'returned by fjc_judge_lookup,' routing the agent to the sibling that produces it. It gives example use cases ('who did Judge X replace') but never states exclusions, e.g. when to prefer fjc_judge_lookup for a plain bio instead of a succession trace.

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