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

Goes well past the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety) by disclosing extraction provenance (body_source, fallback_used), a 200k-character truncation bound with truncated/text_available flags, and staleness semantics via body_as_of, body_pending, and body_note. It also explains the failure mode where an unreadable count makes an empty result inconclusive, and notes every response carries a source/coverage note.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the paragraph becomes dense and parenthetical-heavy, and the staleness explanation is spread across body_pending, body_note, and body_pending_note in a way that is hard to parse in one pass. Every claim is relevant, but the phrasing repeats rather than consolidates.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: truncation flags, provenance, staleness states, and the universal note field. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for invalid ids and whether any supplementary metadata fields exist.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including where to obtain it). The description adds only the phrase "by opinion id," so it neither compensates for nor enriches the schema meaningfully beyond the baseline.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: "Full text of one opinion by opinion id, plus metadata." It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like search, fts, semantic_search (which locate opinions) and treatment/citation (which the description explicitly disclaims).

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 only implied: an agent infers this is the retrieval step after a search returns an opinion_id (that hint lives in the schema, not the description). The negative statements "not live CourtListener... no treatment, 'good law' or citation-validity status" gesture toward the treatment and citation siblings but never name them or state when to prefer them.

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