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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavioral caveats: data is public-source and source-attributed, results are proximity-sorted, person-specific filters only apply where directories support them, and Google Places metrics are never presented as individual attorney ratings. This gives strong transparency about data limitations and filtering behavior.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second summarizes return data and ordering, and the third clarifies limitations and disclaimers. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return content as source-attributed identity, firm, location, and contact data sorted by proximity. It also covers key behavioral edge cases like unsupported person-specific filters and rating-source labeling. Minor gaps remain around exact response structure or error handling, but schema parameter descriptions fill much of the remaining context.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful cross-parameter meaning by clarifying that person-specific filters depend on underlying directory support and that office/listing ratings are distinct from individual attorney ratings, which directly informs how min_rating and other profile-specific filters behave.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: finding public-source employment-law attorney listings near a US location. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the legal-information and research siblings by focusing on location-based attorney contact listings rather than rights explanations, case research, or track records.

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 makes the use case explicit: use this to find employment-law attorney listings near a US location. It also provides a clear exclusion by stating listings are not state-bar verification or an endorsement, which helps agents avoid overclaiming the tool's authority.

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