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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reports data confidence and gaps, and explicitly flags when price or timing cannot be compared because data is unknown — a useful disclosure about output quality.

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 sentences, no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, the scope and compared dimensions follow, and the caveat about incomparable data closes it out.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description covers when to call, what gets compared, and the key limitation on price/timing. The only real omission is guidance on how priorities interact with criteria, which an agent would have to infer.

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 50%. The description maps loosely onto criteria (fees, availability, practice fit) and reiterates the 2–5 bound already encoded in attorney_ids minItems/maxItems, plus explains match_id's purpose. However, 'priorities' — the parameter that shifts ranking weights — is never mentioned, and the criteria vs priorities distinction is left to the schema.

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 (compares) and resource (lawyers), bounds the input (2 to 5), and enumerates the dimensions compared (practice fit, location, years licensed, fees, availability, confidence, gaps). This clearly separates it from get_attorney_profile and the other siblings, which operate on one attorney at a time.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to compare lawyers from find_attorneys') with a sample utterance, and ties match_id to reusing the user's criteria. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for a single attorney, use get_attorney_profile instead' exclusion, which keeps it short of a 5.

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