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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: mentions are not construal and are not a good-law signal. It does not describe pagination or result ordering, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, the critical caveat second, and court values last. No sentence repeats the title or wastes space, and the important limitation is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition is strong on purpose and on the citator caveat but incomplete on the temporal and pagination filters. An agent can call it with only section_id, but it cannot know how after/before are formatted or what limit does beyond the default value.

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 description coverage, the description must carry parameter semantics. It explains the required section_id format ('35-42-1-1') and gives the court enum values (ind, indctapp, indtc), which is useful, but it leaves after, before, and limit completely unexplained, so three of five parameters remain opaque.

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 resource and scope: opinions whose text mentions a given Indiana Code section. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a citator and from cases that construed, applied, or followed the statute, so an agent can tell it apart from cases_construing and case_search without opening another schema.

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 clearly says when not to rely on this tool: it is a text-mention index, not a citator, and not a good-law signal. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as cases_construing for the construed/applied/followed use case, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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