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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: natural persons are masked, criminal cases are heavily truncated with a criminalDetailsWithheld: true flag, and billing is waived on not-found. Those are exactly the surprises an agent needs pre-call.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the criminal-case caveat and the cost note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 by enumerating the returned fields (court, subject, stage, parties with roles, hearings with outcomes, appeals) plus the criminal-case exception and billing behavior. An agent knows what it will get and what it will be charged.

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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with an identical example, so the description adds little beyond restating the format. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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'), names the upstream source (portal.just.ro), and the 'by its number' framing implicitly contrasts with the company-based sibling get_company_court_cases. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives practical usage context ('costs 1 credit; not billed if not found') and a case-number example, which helps an agent decide to call it. But it never says when to prefer this over get_company_court_cases or what to do when a lookup fails, so usage is only implied.

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