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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the `total` field is the upstream corpus match count rather than response row count, and coverage reflects only what SCTS publishes. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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 key routing fact (SCOTS corpus, alternative is search_uk_caselaw) is front-loaded and each clause carries information, but the single dense paragraph runs long and the total-field explanation is buried mid-block rather than separated from the corpus caveat.

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 return-shape burden and does so: title, court, judges, date, document_link, plus a note on the misleading `total`. Coverage limitations and the cross-corpus boundary are both stated, leaving nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema with formats, ranges and the court enum list. The description reiterates the limit/total relationship but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) plus resource (Scottish court and tribunal judgments from SCTS), enumerates the courts/chambers covered, and names the sibling it is not (search_uk_caselaw for England & Wales/UK material). An agent can route between this and search_uk_caselaw without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (SCOTS law vs other UK corpora, pointing at search_uk_caselaw) and a clear next-step (fetch the PDF via get_scottish_judgment). It also warns about thin sheriff court/tribunal coverage, so the agent knows the results may be sparse for lower courts.

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