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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 2-5 attorney bound, what dimensions are contrasted, that verification gaps and trade-offs are surfaced, and that criteria can be inherited via match_id.

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, no filler. The comparison scope is front-loaded and the match_id instruction follows, so the actionable guidance is immediately visible.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews what the comparison surfaces (fit, fees, availability, verification gaps, trade-offs) and the input bounds. The only gap is how criteria and priorities interact to weight the ranking, which is not explained.

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 50% (match_id and priorities carry schema descriptions; attorney_ids and criteria do not). The description restates the 2-5 bound on attorney_ids and the match_id criteria-inheritance behavior, which partially compensates, but 'criteria' and its enum values are left entirely to the schema, so it adds only marginal meaning overall.

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 (compare) and resource (lawyers) plus the cardinality bound (2 to 5) and an enumerated set of comparison dimensions: practice fit, location, years licensed, fees, availability, verification gaps, trade-offs. It is clearly distinct from profile-lookup or finder tools, though no sibling is named outright for differentiation.

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 line 'Pass match_id to use the user's criteria' gives one concrete usage rule tied to a sibling tool (find_attorneys), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus get_attorney_profile or find_attorneys, so usage is mostly implied.

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