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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it explains that when multiple opinions share a docket, the most recent is returned and the frontmatter lists others, and it describes what the 'full' flag adds (summarized reasoning, checked quotes, CourtListener records). These are useful behavioral details not covered by annotations, with no contradiction.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes: the first defines the tool and output, the second addresses the multi-opinion edge case, the third explains the 'full' option. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. Slightly dense but appropriately 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?

The description covers the input formats, output structure (frontmatter, verbatim, summaries), behavior for shared dockets, and the effect of the 'full' flag. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the response contains. For a lookup tool with two parameters, this is adequately complete; missing error handling is not a significant gap.

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 burden. It explains the 'opinion' parameter accepts docket numbers, citations, CourtListener IDs, or case names, and it explains the 'full' parameter adds extra content. This provides meaning beyond the bare schema types, effectively compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single Supreme Court of Georgia opinion by various exact identifiers (docket, citation, CourtListener id, case name). It specifies the output format (Markdown twin with frontmatter, verbatim opinion, summaries) and distinguishes from siblings like opinions_search by focusing on exact lookup. The verb 'lookup' plus resource 'opinion' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for exact identifier lookups but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like opinions_search or opinions_get_text. It does not state 'use this when you have a specific identifier, otherwise use search.' The context signals list siblings, but the description itself offers no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, so usage guidance is only implied.

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