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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: results are relevance-ranked, off-topic matches are dropped, and an empty list explicitly means no on-point judgment exists rather than a failure.

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 front-loaded sentences: scope first, usage examples second, return shape and empty-result semantics last. No sentence is redundant and none repeats the schema verbatim.

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 5-parameter, single-required search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: jurisdiction limits, sample invocations, ranking behavior, and empty-result interpretation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns slightly more by giving example query strings that demonstrate the expected plain-English fact pattern for `query` and by enumerating the court bodies that map onto the `court` enum. It does not clarify the year_from/year_to interaction, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 (Find) and resource (reported judgments/case law) plus an explicit jurisdiction scope and an enumeration of covered courts. It is clearly separable from the sibling search_statutes, which handles statutes rather than case law.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ("Supreme Court judgment on bike snatching", "case law on pre-arrest bail mala fide") that show exactly what requests belong here, and constrains scope with "Pakistan only." It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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