list_courts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists courts at one or all locations, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema (context signal) somewhat mitigates the lack, but the description itself is sparse.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by two example queries. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it. It covers the main use cases. However, it could briefly mention that the output is a list of court objects, but since the output schema exists, this is a minor gap.

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 schema coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter description is missing from the schema. The description compensates minimally by implying the location_id parameter is optional ('one or all locations'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not detail the parameter type or allowed values beyond what the schema already shows.

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 clearly states 'List courts at one or all locations,' which specifies the verb (list), resource (courts), and scope (one or all locations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_court' (singular) and 'list_locations' (different resource).

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 description provides explicit example use cases ('what courts do we have at location 1?', 'list all 12 courts'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, though the context of siblings like 'get_court' implies a singular alternative.

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