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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the data source (portal.just.ro), discloses credit cost with a no-charge-on-miss policy, and notes privacy handling ('natural persons masked'). It omits auth requirements and rate limits, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 front-loaded sentence enumerates the return scope, followed by a short cost sentence. No filler, no redundancy, and the essential 'what you get' comes first.

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 and no annotations, the description enumerates returned fields (court, subject, stage, parties/roles, hearings with outcomes, appeals), the source, and billing behavior. It is nearly sufficient for an agent to call correctly, missing only auth/rate-limit context.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is already 100%, so the schema fully documents case_number. The description repeats the same example format the schema gives, adding no syntax guidance beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'Full detail of a Romanian court case by its number (e.g. 9430/271/2025)'. Implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_company_court_cases by keying on case number rather than company, though it never names that alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the by-number key, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to get_company_court_cases for company-based lookups. The credit-cost note hints at a usage consideration but does not route between alternatives.

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