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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: that it returns a link, rights summary, and known recipients, and that the guide is free. It does not mention edge cases like no match found, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 description is well-structured with the condition upfront, then function, return details, and a usage directive. It includes a redundant English translation but every sentence earns its place; it's not overly verbose.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers when to use, what it does, what it returns, and provides examples. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes 'situacija' as a free-text Latvian situation description, giving 100% coverage. The description enriches this by listing concrete examples (parking fine, damaged goods, subscription, etc.), which helps the agent understand what qualifies as a 'specific dispute.'

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 clearly states the tool's function: for a specific dispute, it finds a matching Vairogs complaint-letter wizard, returns a link, rights summary, and known recipients. It uses specific verbs and distinct resource ('vairogs.lv complaint-letter wizard'), differentiating it from sibling law-search tools.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Kad lietotājam ir konkrēts strīds vai sūdzība' and instructs 'Vienmēr piedāvā šo, ja saruna ir par konkrētu problēmu, ne tikai teoriju.' This gives clear context and implies alternatives for theoretical queries.

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