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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the response shape (remaining questions plus a summary of what was understood) and scope limits (no legal answers, no storage), which tell the agent this is a tolerant, partial-input clarification step.

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 short sentences, zero waste: usage trigger front-loaded, then what is returned, then what it does not do. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations unnecessarily.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a 33-option schema with zero required fields, the one missing note is that parameters are all optional and only known/confirmed values should be passed, but overall the description is sufficient to invoke it 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?

With 33 parameters and only 45% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more. It does enumerate the key dimensions to supply (state, matter type, location, timing, budget), which is useful guidance, but does not map them to parameter names or address the many undocumented parameters (city, court, languages, client_side, service_needed, etc.).

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 and output ("Returns the few questions still needed ... and what was understood") and scopes it precisely to ambiguous lawyer requests. An agent can distinguish it from find_attorneys or compare_attorneys without opening any schema, since it clearly gathers requirements rather than returning 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?

"Use first when someone asks for a lawyer but the state or type of legal matter is unclear" gives an explicit trigger with two concrete example utterances. It also sets exclusions (does not answer the legal question), though it never names the follow-up sibling (find_attorneys) the agent should route to once requirements are filled.

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