list_courts

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns ~200 courts, supports type-based filtering, and provides common court code examples. It doesn't describe pagination or authentication requirements, but for a simple list operation, the added context is adequate.

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 description is three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, gives a usage trigger, and provides immediately actionable examples—no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, result scale, filtering, and sample values. It is self-sufficient and unlikely to leave an agent guessing.

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 descriptions already fully cover both 'test' and 'type' parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond restating 'use type to filter' and providing examples, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered params.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all PACER courts with their court codes.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_case or find_cases by focusing on court metadata lookup.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this when you need a court_code and don't know it.' It also directs filtering via 'use type to filter,' though it doesn't mention specific alternatives or exclusions. The when-condition is clear and useful.

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