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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose—verifying existence and licensing—but does not disclose return format, edge cases (e.g., no match, multiple matches), or any operational details. This is a significant transparency gap for a lookup tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly communicates the core function without redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 lookup tool, the description provides the essential purpose but leaves out important context such as what the response contains and how the optional state parameter affects results. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (name and state) with 100% coverage. The description adds a minimal interpretative layer (verification intent) but does not elaborate beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up a lawyer by name to verify existence and licensing. It uses a specific verb (look up) and resource (lawyer by name), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_lawyers and get_lawyer_profile by focusing on verification rather than broad search or profile details.

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 conveys a clear use case: verifying whether a lawyer exists and is licensed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., search_lawyers for broader searches), so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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