List courts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the STF-unavailability constraint and the alias-to-`court`-parameter mapping, which is genuinely useful but modest; it says nothing about list size, caching, or freshness.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and what is returned, followed by the filter and the one caveat. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 structure needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains for the description — the purpose of the aliases, the optional segment filter, and the STF gap — is all present, so an agent can call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden — it identifies the parameter's purpose as filtering by 'justice segment' and marks it optional. The six segment values are supplied by the enum in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though the description offers no nuance about how the segments map to courts.

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 ('list the courts available in DataJud') and goes further by explaining what the results are for: they are the aliases accepted as the `court` parameter by the sibling tools. That linkage lets an agent place the tool correctly without opening the 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 parenthetical '(the `court` parameter of the other tools)' tells the agent when this tool is needed — as a lookup before calling tools that take a court. It adds one concrete exclusion (STF is not available) but does not spell out what to do if a court is missing or contrast against siblings beyond the parameter linkage.

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