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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that search matches literal words of the document (not semantic meaning) and that in_headings scopes to case names, legal areas, and case types. This adds some behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose pagination, result format, or other operational details.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a direct-lookup note and a query tip. Every sentence adds relevant information without waste. The structure is logical and easy to scan, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of guidance. It does not describe what results look like, how pagination works, or how to combine parameters effectively. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), this is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without further discovery.

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 compensate. It mentions query implicitly via the search behavior and explains in_headings, but does not describe year, limit, or case_type. While these parameter titles are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their allowed values or how they interact, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for a 5-parameter tool.

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 performs full-text search over opinion text, case names, and labeled summaries, and explicitly differentiates it from a direct lookup. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like opinions_lookup and opinions_list, leaving no ambiguity about its core function.

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 offers a query-formation tip ('ask in the words the court would use') and notes that a bare docket or citation is a direct lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like opinions_lookup or opinions_list. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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