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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the results are an editorial/firm-claimed directory, inclusion is not endorsement, and bar status plus conflicts must be verified independently — useful trust-boundary information for an agent relaying results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and filters, followed by a short caveat. Every clause earns its place 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 exists, but the description characterises the return qualitatively (directory listing of firms) and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a low-complexity read-only search, this is nearly complete; return shape and pagination are left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents jurisdiction resolution, sub-jurisdiction matching, and the forward-compatibility caveat for 'language'. The description adds no parameter detail beyond mentioning jurisdiction and practice area, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Search Magist's open counsel directory for law firms' — plus the filter dimensions (jurisdiction, practice area). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_vendors and find_controls, which target different directories.

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 frames the intent ('help a user identify licensed attorneys to consult') but names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions relative to sibling lookup tools. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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