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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return contents in each mode (rule numbers and titles vs. set names and rule counts) plus the data source, which helps the agent decide whether the response is sufficient for its task.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the two modes, then provenance. No filler.

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 an output schema present and a single optional parameter fully documented, the description needs only to distinguish the two call modes, which it does. Minor gap: it never says where to go for the full text of a rule.

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% and the schema already documents that 'set' accepts an id or common name and that omitting it lists all sets. The description largely restates this, adding only the 'trial' example that the schema also 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Indiana Rules of Court') and explains the two distinct result shapes for with-set vs. no-set calls. It does not name the sibling in_court_rule, so the boundary between listing rules and fetching a specific rule's text is left implicit.

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?

'With a set... so you can find the right citation' gives a clear use context, and the no-set branch has its own described behavior. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative tool for retrieving full rule text.

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