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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data is self-reported/confirmed, carries a last-checked timestamp, and has a certainty tier, which tells the agent results may be stale or provisional.

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 compact sentences with the core subject front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical enumeration of certainty states is dense but earns its place by defining the returned vocabulary.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description usefully previews return fields (last-checked time, certainty) and the data-freshness caveat. It remains incomplete on the four input parameters and on when to prefer it over the other attorney-lookup siblings.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions attorney_ids, time_zone, wanted_by or appointment_type. It describes output attributes (certainty, last-checked) rather than parameter meaning, leaving most inputs undocumented.

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 resource (attorney availability reported to ALCBar) and the nature of the data, including last-checked time and certainty levels. It distinguishes itself from a live-calendar tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_attorney_profile or find_attorneys.

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 only usage signal is the negative constraint 'There is no live calendar access,' which tells the agent what the tool cannot do. There is no guidance on when to call it versus alternatives such as find_attorneys or request_attorney_introduction.

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