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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: which courts are covered, that directors as well as the company count as parties, and which fields are returned (case type, outcome, dates, damages). It does not discuss pagination or coverage limits, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then usage triggers. The synonym list in the final sentence earns its place by improving retrieval matching for varied phrasings; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the data source (NZ courts), the entity scope (NZX company and directors), and the returned fields. Return-format details are correctly left to the output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the NZX ticker format and examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get court litigation history'), then narrows the scope precisely: NZX companies, the three named courts, and the party relationship (company or its directors). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_regulatory_actions or get_prohibited_directors because the resource is explicitly 'court litigation' rather than regulatory or directorship data.

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 final sentence gives clear trigger conditions ('lawsuits, court cases, legal proceedings, or litigation risk for a company'), which is solid routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use (e.g. vs regulatory actions or insolvency checks), so it does not reach the 5 level.

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