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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully scopes the content returned (fees, contacts, one office) but adds nothing about auth, caching, or freshness, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the covered content. No filler, though the enumerated list is slightly dense without stating the retrieval action.

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?

With an output schema present and the parameter fully documented, the description only needs to convey scope, which it does. It is complete for a simple read-only info lookup, with the only gap being the absent routing versus list_offices.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `site` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for Los Angeles' default. The description's 'for one office' merely restates the schema's intent without adding format or example detail beyond it.

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 names a specific resource (firm information for the Employment Lawyers Group) and enumerates what it covers: practice areas, representation, fees, and office contact details. The retrieval verb is implicit rather than stated, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list_offices, though 'for one office' hints at the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'for one office' and the sibling list_offices imply a contrast, but the agent must infer that list_offices is the multi-office alternative; nothing states it.

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