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

Beyond readOnly annotations, it discloses important behavior: results are limited to published fees, confirmed quotes, or sourced market figures, each labeled, and the tool will say when data is insufficient rather than guessing. This meaningfully sets expectations for reliability and uncertainty.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary use case stated first followed by return behavior and a limitation. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, return sources, labeling, and uncertainty handling. The main gap is how optional parameters should be used, especially given low schema description coverage.

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 description adds no guidance on the seven input parameters, including scope, state, budget_max, billing_preference, and attorney_id. With only 43% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters but does not.

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 states a specific purpose: estimating what a lawyer or type of legal matter will cost. It is clearly distinct from the attorney-search, availability, and referral tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 gives a clear trigger: use when the user asks what a lawyer or matter will cost. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, aside from clarifying that the result is not a quote.

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