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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds meaningful context: 'Availability depends on what the court source publishes; an entry with no free document is reported as such rather than guessed at' – disclosing that results may be incomplete and that it won't fabricate availability. Also notes that no account is needed for a case number, which clarifies access requirements.

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 moderately lengthy but each sentence contributes: action, usage, behavior, parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with usage. No redundant phrasing, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

The description covers what is returned (entry number, text, link), explains the availability caveat, and how to identify the case. With no output schema, it adequately describes the return content. The limit parameter is documented in the schema, and the description mentions court optionality. It is complete for a read-only list tool, especially given the annotations.

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. The description adds value by explaining when to use case_number vs matter_id ('Identify the case with case_number (and court, if known), or with matter_id for a case already saved to the account') and clarifies that court is optional. It also notes 'No account is needed to give a case number,' which helps parameter selection. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('List the docket entries... that have a document available') and the exact output (entry number, text, and link). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_case_status or get_case_deadlines by focusing on document availability rather than case progression or deadlines.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks what documents are on file, whether an order or a motion is available to read, or for a copy of a filing.' This gives clear trigger conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent about when not to use it (e.g., for deadlines).

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