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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the corpus is the DPR RI "Info Judicial Review" resume collection of 800+ documents, and it lists the fields returned. It does not discuss pagination behavior or coverage limits, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and defers examples and return fields to the end. It is long but nearly every clause carries new information; the parenthetical MK gloss and the duplicated outcome list are the only mild padding.

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 naming the returned fields (case number, statute under review, outcome category, detail link) and the corpus scope, which is what an agent needs to call and chain it. The absence of any pagination or empty-result guidance is the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by expanding the outcome vocabulary behind category (granted = article declared unconstitutional, rejected, inadmissible, analysis, dpr_statement) and by giving worked examples for query and year. That meaningfully enriches the schema rather than restating it.

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 names a specific verb and resource — finding Indonesian Constitutional Court judicial-review outcomes on statutes — and enumerates the outcome types returned. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling idn_mk_review_detail, which it points to for the full document.

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?

It gives concrete user-phrasing triggers ("Constitutional Court rulings on the election law", "was the petition against UU 11/2020 granted", "MK decisions in 2023") and three supported lookup axes (case number, statute words, year), and routes to idn_mk_review_detail. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or contrast with idn_list_statutes/idn_search_regulations, so it stops short of a 5.

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