Anwaltsuche DE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the id provenance, which is useful, but discloses no behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or error behavior on a missing id.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation and parameter first, then enumerates the returned fields. The field list is long but every item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description fully assumes the burden of describing the return value, enumerating register data, verification date, Fachanwalt titles, firm, contacts, links, languages and ratings. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that the id is the 16-character value obtained from search_lawyers. The format detail is partly redundant with the schema's pattern, but the provenance is genuinely new information.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One lawyer by id') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming search_lawyers as the source of the id. An agent can tell it apart from search_lawyers without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical '(the 16-character id from search_lawyers)' establishes the prerequisite workflow: you get the id from search_lawyers, then call this. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative path.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses ranking behavior (Fachanwalt title first, exact spellings first), fuzzy matching (umlaut variants and one typo per word), radius semantics, returned register-verified contact/profile data, and excluded lawyer categories. This is substantial behavioral context an agent would not get from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the search scope and filters, and each sentence covers a distinct detail such as area ranking, name matching, return content, or exclusions. It is dense but has no 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 specifies returned data and exclusions, while annotations cover safety hints. The missing limit/pagination detail is minor because the schema defines limit bounds and defaults.

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 high at 80%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for area (24 Fachanwalt areas and ranking) and name (surname/firm matching, umlaut and typo tolerance). It does not explain limit behavior and adds little for language beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search lawyers' with clear geographic scope and filters. It does not explicitly differentiate this search tool from the sibling get_lawyer tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: 'Give city, name or both' and explains that using name returns only matches narrowed by city, area, and language. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_lawyer, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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