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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the aggregation semantics warning that totals are attorney-wide rather than current-firm-only, which prevents a misreading of the returned numbers. No mention of rate limits or result size, but that is a modest gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the one interpretive caveat that matters. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the one non-obvious semantic risk (cross-firm aggregation) is called out explicitly. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the note that 'purpose' is logged and never returned. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the 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?

Names the resource precisely ('One attorney') and enumerates the facets returned: firms, opposing firms, medical experts, motion practice, case outcomes. The scope caveat ('figures span every firm the attorney has filed with, not only their current firm') separates it from a firm-scoped lookup, though the description never names search_attorneys as the entry point the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

Usage is only implied: the aggregate caveat tells the agent how to interpret figures but not when to pick this tool over search_attorneys or get_firm. The fact that juris_number must come from search_attorneys appears only in the schema, not the description, so the workflow has to be inferred.

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