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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: results carry official links and versions, CENDOJ summaries are distinguishable from full judgments, applied_filters reports the scope actually applied, and omitted allowed_modes falls back to natural hybrid retrieval. It still says nothing about result volume or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then the highest-risk pitfall (court written in query does not filter), then scope and mode semantics. A few clauses are terse to the point of opacity ('content_scope', 'versions') and the ordering of the mode sentences is slightly scattered.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description covers the decision-critical traps (court restriction, court_scope, allowed_modes default) but leaves most filtering parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently populate the full schema from the definition alone.

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 only 20% across 15 parameters, yet the description explains only court/body_code aliasing, court_scope, allowed_modes values, and the query-as-not-filter caveat. Roughly ten parameters (countries, body_family, source_groups, date bounds, require_semantic, content_languages, response_language, court_category_code, limit) receive no meaning in either place.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search judicial passages') and names the returned artifacts (official links, versions, content_scope), so the agent knows the operation. It never distinguishes this tool from the sibling search_decisions, which is likely a near-neighbour in the same domain.

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 concrete invocation rules rather than generic advice: send body_code='TS' for a user court restriction because the court is an alias, writing the court in query does not filter, one court per call, and court_scope='all' only when the user permits all courts. Missing is any explicit routing guidance against siblings like search_decisions or answer_with_sources.

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