lookup_court_establishment_code

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that it 'returns static master data' (stable/cacheable) and carries a domain disclaimer, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and reasonably sized, with clear Args/Returns/Notes structure. The legal disclaimer is boilerplate that doesn't strictly earn its place for a code lookup, a minor cost.

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 single-parameter static lookup with an output schema already covering return shape, the definition is nearly complete. The only shortfall is routing guidance versus sibling decoders, which the description leaves implicit.

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% and the schema already documents the code with concrete examples (MH, MHPU, MHPU01). The description only restates 'code: Court establishment code' without adding format or hierarchy meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('look up') and resource ('court establishment codes') with scope ('states, districts, and complexes'). An agent can tell it apart from generic decoders like decode_state_code, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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?

'Use when you need to decode the state and district court location from a code' gives a usage scenario, but it is largely circular (the decoder is for decoding) and names no alternatives or exclusions among the many lookup_*/decode_* siblings.

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