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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses coverage limits (~20-40 of totalListed, first page only), result ordering including sponsored placement, the bar-licence caveat, and the exact billing model (per successful call, failed calls free, x402 payment rails). These are traits an agent could not infer from 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?

Two dense sentences with the resource and field list front-loaded, then caveats and pricing. Slightly crammed with parentheticals, but no sentence is 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?

Covers what would otherwise be gaps for an agent: pagination ceiling, ordering/sponsored bias, data-reliability caveat, and cost. With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, so nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% with concrete slug examples for all three params, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'practice area in a US city', adding no format or validity guidance 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?

States a specific verb+resource (reads FindLaw directory listings for a practice area in a US city) and enumerates the returned fields, which makes it immediately distinguishable from the other directory/court-record siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it reads the public city page, first page only, and that a listing is not proof of a bar licence. It does not explicitly route to an alternative sibling (e.g. yellowpages, bbb) for the same need, so it lands short of a 5.

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