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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that a miss is an expected, actionable outcome ('not found means summon it') rather than an error, and that only public profile data is exposed. It stops short of describing the profile's contents, but the annotations carry much of the burden.

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 no filler; the lookup form comes first and the workflow decision second. The phrase 'the other side' is slightly oblique and costs a moment of parsing, which keeps it off a 5.

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 one-parameter, read-only, closed-world lookup with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: what is returned (a public profile) and how to interpret a negative result. No output schema exists, and the description gives just enough on return semantics without enumerating fields.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with a pattern. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the wallet form is specifically 'the wallet it signs in with' (the signer wallet), not an arbitrary address, which is a non-obvious constraint on the input.

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 resource (the public profile of an agent) together with the three accepted lookup keys, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. 'Public profile' implicitly separates it from get_me (own profile) and list_lawyers_and_judges (directory), making sibling choice clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('before filing') and what to do with each outcome: found -> file_case, not found -> summon_agent. Both alternative tools are named by their purpose, so the routing decision needs no inference.

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