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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the summary content: top clients, top Nice classes, and prosecution-versus-TTAB profile. This goes beyond the annotation-only signal and gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool will produce.

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 two sentences with no redundant filler. The core action and output contents are front-loaded, and the usage trigger is appended efficiently. Every sentence contributes to selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Combined with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on which identifier parameter to prefer or how resolution behaves, but this is not critical given the schema covers parameter descriptions and the output schema explains return structure.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only high-level context ('named correspondent') and does not explain the relationship between url_key, search_term, and correspondent_name, nor the effect of the limit parameters. This is adequate but not additive beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize what a named correspondent specializes in.' It also enumerates the output categories (top clients, top Nice classes, prosecution-versus TTAB profile) and clearly distinguishes this from related correspondent tools by framing it around specialization rather than marks or firm-level tasks.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks what a specific correspondent or attorney specializes in.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the stated trigger condition is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings like get_correspondent_marks or search_attorneys.

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