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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that most hits are metadata only and that every classification label is a heuristic read rather than an authoritative judgment. That is material context an agent would otherwise misinterpret.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on sequence of near-identical caveats ('when that index is loaded' appears four times, 'not an official X' restated per filter). The content earns most of its place, but structure and repetition cost it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the filter semantics are well covered. The gap is the four undocumented parameters (query, after, before, limit) for a tool whose schema provides no descriptions at all.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the full burden, and it does document court, form, disposition, standard, separate, and author with their accepted values and important semantic caveats (labels are rule reads, not official holdings). But it leaves query, after, before, and limit completely unexplained — four of ten parameters with no syntax, date format, or default behavior described.

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 ('Search') plus the exact resource scope: Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court clusters from a CourtListener extract. That is enough to distinguish it from case_get (retrieval) and ic_search (statutes), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 repeated 'when that index is loaded' wording is genuinely useful usage context, warning the agent that filters may silently not apply. However, there is no guidance on when to use this over case_get or cases_citing_case, and no statement of what to do when an index is absent.

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