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

Absent annotations, the description adds behavioral context: case-insensitive name matching, conditional availability of bio. It does not disclose missing outcomes, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a agent.

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 purpose and key details. Every word adds value - no fluff or repetition.

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 low-complexity tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and essential behavior. Minor gaps (limit semantics, error states) exist but do not severely hinder its completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the 'name' parameter (case-insensitive) but completely omits the 'limit' parameter, leaving agents unsure of its effect.

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 retrieves a single attorney's profile, listing specific contents (bio, outcomes, cases). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'search_attorneys' by specifying 'one attorney' versus searching multiple.

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 implies use for fetching a single attorney's details, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. With 'search_attorneys' as a sibling, a comparison would improve clarity.

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