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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that hits omit text unless full_text is set, explains that the sibling 'position' serves that text, and defines what 'indented' and 'modified' marks mean. It also notes that norm_refs dates quoted norms to the edition then in force, though it does not cover ordering or pagination behavior.

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 short and front-loads the core definition and routing guidance, with no padded sentences. Some clauses are terse and the mark/norm_refs explanation is compressed, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential conceptual model, when to use it versus ЄДРСР, and key output behaviors like full_text and mark semantics. It leaves some return-shape details such as pagination, ordering, and total counts implicit, which are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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 78%, so the schema already explains most parameters such as q, full_text, court_code, case_number, category_id, and jurisdiction. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the full_text behavior and mentioning the separate 'position' tool, so it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific resource ('Supreme Court's legal positions') and defines it as an analyst's statement of what the Court held, explicitly distinguishing it from ЄДРСР judgments. It also tells the agent to search here first for a Supreme Court position, making the tool's role clear against siblings like ua_edrsr__search and ua_lpd__position.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: ЄДРСР has judgments but not the holding, so for a Supreme Court position 'search here first.' It also points to the sibling 'position' for full position text when hits omit it, covering the main when-to-use and alternative-tool decision.

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