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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the full lifecycle_state vocabulary (recorded through failed), that a private status_token is needed for access, and the semantic rule that a consultation only counts when confirmed. It does not discuss rate limits or retention, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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?

The trigger condition and return shape are front-loaded, which is good structure. But the closing sentences about being a listing service rather than a referral service, and that no lawyer pays for placement or ranking, are policy disclaimers that do not help an agent decide to call or how to call it, and they dilute the operational content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates the lifecycle states, which helps the agent interpret results and relay them to the user. Combined with the token requirement and the confirmed-consultation rule, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly. Only the sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only the qualifier that status_token is private and required in practice, which is modestly useful but slightly at odds with the schema marking it optional. It adds little beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific resource and outcome: it reports what happened to a message the person sent, returning lifecycle_state, lawyer delivery, and the lawyer's response. That is far more concrete than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from status siblings such as get_introduction_status or get_referral_status, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"Use when the person asks what happened with a message they sent" gives a clear triggering condition, and "a consultation counts only when confirmed" clarifies how to interpret the result. However, with three status-checking siblings in the toolset, no guidance is given on when to pick this one versus get_introduction_status or get_referral_status, so the agent must infer the routing.

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