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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the returned question set is filtered by what is already in `answers`, and reads the referenced skill first. Minor tension: "opens a work record" implies state creation, which sits awkwardly with readOnlyHint=true, though it is consistent with returning a question set rather than persisting anything.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and its return, then the ordering hint, then the prerequisite. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the core return (clarifying questions, minus those answered). It does not say what else comes back — notably whether a task/work-record handle is returned for later calls to record_answers or work_record — which is the one thing an agent needs to chain correctly.

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 nested `answers` object documents each question id and the `from`/`quote` semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds value by explaining that `answers` suppresses already-answered questions and by pinning country and state as the first two to ask.

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?

"Opens a work record for one legal task and returns the clarifying questions" gives a concrete verb, resource and return value, and places it as "step 1, define the task" in the framework flow. It implicitly separates it from record_answers (answers already supplied) but never names a sibling such as get_started, which an agent may confuse with this entry point.

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 a hard prerequisite ("Read the skill ailf://skills/ai-law-framework before the first call") and prescribes ordering for the first two questions. There is clear when-to-use context (start of a task) but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among the 13 siblings.

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