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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context not present in structured fields: the default sort is 'most cases first', which affects how results should be interpreted. Pagination is left to the cursor/limit schema.

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 filter/sort behavior and followed immediately by the disambiguation pointer. There is no filler and nothing an agent must read past.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to carry purpose and routing, which it does. Minor gaps like the default page size are already documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so every parameter already has documented meaning, including the side-ranking nuance and min_cases behavior. The description's mention of 'size' maps loosely to min_cases but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('law firms') plus the filter dimensions (name, side, district, size) and ordering ('most cases first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_firm ('gives one firm in full'), so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 sentence 'get_firm gives one firm in full' makes the list-vs-detail split clear, which is the main decision an agent faces here. It stops short of explicitly ruling out other search_* siblings or stating prerequisites, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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