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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the output (top clients, Nice classes, prosecution/TTAB profile) but does not disclose potential resolution behaviors or edge cases. It contributes some value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds usage guidance. No wasted words; every clause earns its place. It is highly concise while remaining informative.

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?

This is a read-only summarization tool with a rich output schema and full parameter documentation. The description explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and key output elements, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not describe return format, but the output schema compensates for that.

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 coverage is 100%, with all five parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., url_key vs search_term priority), but the schema descriptions already cover each parameter individually.

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 clearly states the tool summarizes what a named correspondent specializes in, with specific output components (top clients, Nice classes, prosecution vs. TTAB profile). This distinct 'specialization' focus differentiates it from sibling tools like get_correspondent_marks or get_firm_top_correspondents.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool when the user asks what a specific correspondent or attorney specializes in. It provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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