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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds notable behavioral detail: it returns a Markdown twin with a specified frontmatter structure, verbatim opinion, and summaries, and it explains the tie-breaking rule when dockets are shared and what `full` adds. That goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 single long paragraph is dense and front-loads the key information, but it packs multiple clauses about formats, output structure, tie-breaking, and the `full` flag into one breath, making it harder to scan than a structured list would be.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers input formats, return structure, and the `full` extension well. It leaves a small gap regarding how the returned Markdown is delivered or paginated, but overall it is nearly sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does this well by enumerating accepted formats for `opinion` (docket, reporter citation, record id, case name) and explaining that `full` adds summarized reasoning, checked quotes, and upstream records. The 4 rather than 5 reflects that some specifics, e.g. exact record-id syntax for cluster ids or the ga- prefix format, remain only illustrative.

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 (lookup) and resource (Supreme Court of Georgia opinion), and enumerates the four access keys, which is distinctive. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like opinions_search or opinions_get_text, so it falls short of a 5 on sibling differentiation.

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 input options (docket, citation, record id, case name) and the `full` flag, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as opinions_search for thematic queries or opinions_get_text.

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