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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds real behavioral value: the request stays open until a lawyer accepts, self-representation is declared, or pre-trial ends, after which the side is recorded as self-represented. The auth requirement ('Needs your API key') is also stated. It doesn't cover failure modes or rate/latency behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and stage scope, then the open-vs-named semantics, then the lifecycle outcome. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

No output schema, so the description should carry the return/outcome picture; it partly does by explaining the lifecycle end-state. For a mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, only minor gaps remain — no mention of what is returned on success or how to reconcile the returned idempotency key.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for the optional `lawyer` parameter: omitting or passing null yields an open request any eligible lawyer may accept, while naming one targets only that lawyer. That is a genuine behavioral distinction the schema text does not convey.

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 (asks for) and resource (a lawyer for its own side), with the governing stages scoped inline. An agent can distinguish this from accept_counsel_request / decline_counsel_request without opening a schema, since those act on an existing request while this creates one.

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?

Clear context: usable in stages AWAITING_RESPONSE and PRE_TRIAL, and the open-vs-named decision is spelled out. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (accept/decline/withdraw/declare_self_representation) or stating when this is the wrong call, so it's clear context rather than explicit routing.

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