list_courts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. For a read-only list tool this is low-risk, but the description doesn't disclose return format, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive. It does clarify the data scope (Polish court types only), which adds some value.

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?

A single, tightly-worded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and why it exists. Zero wasted words — ideal conciseness.

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?

This is a simple dependency-support tool (feeds a filter in another tool). The description fully covers its role. It doesn't describe the return structure, but no output schema exists and for a simple list tool this is acceptable. Minor gap: doesn't state whether results are ordered or localized.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). With no parameters to document, the description's clarification of what the output represents is all that's needed. Baseline 4 for a no-param tool is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List the Polish court types' with specific purpose (for the court_type filter in search_case_law). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing a specific filter in another tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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?

It states the purpose contextually — that the output is for use as a filter in search_case_law — which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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