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 does add useful context by specifying that the database includes only defenders with 'documented case outcomes, failures, or systemic-context entries' and lists result fields. However, it does not disclose pagination, sorting, rate limits, or the meaning of 'score', leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second lists the included fields. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every word adds value.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains what the tool searches but not how to construct a query, interpret the county filter, or understand the result format. The lack of parameter semantics and output details makes it incomplete for a search tool.

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 has only 25% description coverage (only 'status' has an example), and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, query, county, status). The description lists output fields ('Bar number, county, office, score') but provides no guidance on how to use the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'public database of California public defenders'. It further narrows the scope to 'documented case outcomes, failures, or systemic-context entries', which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_das or search_officers, and from get_defender which likely retrieves a single record.

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 implies the tool is for searching public defenders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_defender or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicitly stated.

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