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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these: substring matching against plaintiff, defendant, and case style; role restriction; and the critical 'rolling activity window' caveat meaning an empty result is not proof the party was never sued. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, differentiation from federal sources, matching behavior, optional filters, return fields, and the rolling-window caveat. The most important use-case framing is front-loaded, and the warning is placed at the end where it serves as an interpretive note.

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 compensates by enumerating exactly what is returned: cause number, court, case type, decoded status, filing and judgment dates, both parties, and both attorneys with Texas State Bar numbers. Combined with matching semantics, optional filters, and the rolling-window caveat, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 structured fields already document name, role, limit, case_type, filed_after, and filed_before. The description adds a helpful example ('KROGER' finds 'KROGER TEXAS L.P.' and 'THE KROGER CO') and clarifies matching scope across party fields, but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema.

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 plus resource: 'Find Harris County (Houston, TX) state civil court cases involving a named party.' It explicitly frames the use case as the 'is this company being sued, and by whom' question, which clearly separates this party-search tool from sibling tools like harris_civil_case, harris_civil_coverage, and harris_civil_recent_filings.

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 tells an agent when to reach for this tool: when the question is about a named party in Texas state civil court, and explicitly notes that federal docket sources like court-listener and PACER cannot answer it. It also includes an interpretive caveat about the rolling activity window, which guards against a false negative conclusion.

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