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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: it reads the RECAP archive, requires no API key or PACER fee, returns links rather than text, and warns that coverage is only partial (~36% of dockets). This fully sets expectations for a read-only lookup tool.

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 tight sentences deliver the action, invocation modes, output boundary, and important limitations. The most important content is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly tells the agent what will be returned (document links and docket-entry numbering) and what will not (document text). It also covers both supported input modes, the data source, and the coverage limitation, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the key relationship between docket_id and the court/docket_number pair, which is helpful, but it doesn't materially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema 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 action and resource — "List the DOCUMENTS FILED in a US federal court case" — with concrete examples of document types and a direct link to each PDF. It also names the output boundary (links and docket-entry numbering, not text), making the tool's role unmistakable even without comparing schemas.

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 clearly tells an agent how to invoke the tool: "Give a docket_id from a docket search, or a court and docket number." It also sets expectations about cost and coverage, but does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools. Still, no sibling is a direct competitor, so the practical usage context is sufficient.

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