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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the static-release scope and the five-result cap, but it does not explain how multiple filters combine or what 'selected static release' means in operational terms.

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?

Two tight sentences accomplish everything: the first states the verb, resource, and cap; the second lists supported filters and the mandatory-filter rule. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only search tool, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, result cap, listed filter dimensions, and the at-least-one-filter requirement. It does not describe return format or filter combination semantics, but no output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates several filter categories but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the 'trademark only' constraint on nice_classes or the hard maximum of five results.

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 ('Find') and resource ('firms or attorneys') and scopes it to the selected static release, which makes the core purpose clear. It even enumerates the supported match criteria. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_ip_representative_profile, but 'find up to five' versus 'profile' makes the search intent reasonably distinct.

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 gives concrete use cases: name, jurisdiction, right type, released leading Nice class, or released leading-client match. It also states the non-obvious constraint that at least one filter is required. It does not name when not to use this tool or point to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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