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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior: VSO help is free, only attorneys/claim agents may charge, and only after an initial decision. It still omits result limits, ordering behavior, and return shape.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: what it finds, the fee caveat, then the trigger condition. No sentence is redundant, and the most decision-relevant content leads.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a read-only lookup tool the description covers purpose, eligibility context, and trigger adequately. It could optionally state what a result contains, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 coverage is 67%, with state and zip documented in the schema. The description adds meaning to the undocumented type enum by enumerating the three representative categories and their differing fee rules, exceeding the baseline case.

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 ("Find") and resource ("VA-accredited attorney, claim agent, or VSO representative") and scopes the source roster. The purpose is unmistakable, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling find_cvso, leaving an agent to infer the difference.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use ("Use when a veteran wants an accredited representative") with concrete scenarios ("appeal, CAVC or higher-level review"). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, e.g. it never routes to find_cvso for county-level officers.

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