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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: license source and check date, data freshness, directory link, suggested citation, and exact consent text required before an introduction.

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 usage condition is front-loaded, followed by a compact return summary and the consent-text detail. The dense return list earns its place because each item clarifies what the caller receives.

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 an output schema and safety annotations present, the description does not need to explain return values or read-only behavior. It is nearly complete, but would be stronger if it stated where attorney_id comes from.

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 0%, so the one required UUID parameter is not documented in the schema. The description implies it identifies 'one lawyer from a match,' but it does not explain the ID's provenance, format, or where to obtain it.

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 verb and resource: getting details on one lawyer, with the scope 'from a match.' This clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings like find_attorneys and compare_attorneys.

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 when-to-use condition: the user wants details on one lawyer from a match. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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