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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload ('opinions, dockets, and case summaries') and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, result ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the purpose front-loaded before the return summary. Nothing is padded or redundant, though it is minimal rather than richly informative.

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 simple four-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, and the second sentence partially compensates for the absent output schema. It still leaves pagination, ordering, and result-size behavior unaddressed, with no annotations to fill the 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 100%, so the schema already documents court, limit, company, and date_after with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Find all federal court cases involving a specific company'), making the company-scoped nature unambiguous. It does not name the sibling tools (search_cases, get_case), so differentiation from a general case search is inferred rather than stated.

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 tool's scope: it is the company-anchored lookup, as opposed to the broader search_cases or single-case get_case. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.

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