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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it leads with free options, filters by multiple criteria, and mentions fee regulations for attorneys/agents. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the ordering and legal constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains representative types, and the third adds legal context. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a read-only lookup tool. It covers purpose, filters, fee rules, and a disclaimer. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the inconsistency about 'language' filtering is a minor gap.

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 meaning by explaining the rep_type enum values and the fee implications for attorneys/agents. However, it mentions filtering by 'language' which is not a parameter in the input schema, causing confusion. Schema coverage is low (25%), so the description should compensate more fully, but it does not fully clarify all parameters (e.g., 'limit' is not explained).

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's purpose: finding a VA-accredited representative for disability claims or appeals. It specifies the verb 'Find' and the resource 'representative', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_presumptive_conditions' by focusing on locating a human representative. The mention of filtering by state, city, type, and language further clarifies the scope.

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 provides context on when to use this tool: when one needs accredited representation for a claim or appeal. It explains the types of representatives and that free options are shown first. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings, the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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