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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses provenance (OGC roster) and a legal constraint (only these people may charge for representation). It does not describe result ordering or pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then source, then usage trigger. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 read-only lookup with three simple params and no output schema, the agent has what it needs: what the tool returns, where the data comes from, and when to reach for it. Only the return shape/ranking behavior is unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%, and the description adds nothing about parameters — the 'appeal, CAVC' phrasing gestures at case complexity but never explains type choice or the state requirement. With most parameters self-documented in the schema, this is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a precise resource (VA-accredited attorney, claim agent, or VSO representative), plus the authoritative source (VA Office of General Counsel roster). An agent can distinguish this from find_cvso or search_veteran_resources without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing context: use for complex cases (appeal, CAVC, higher-level review) that exceed CVSO capability, which implicitly separates it from the sibling find_cvso. It stops short of naming find_cvso outright as the alternative for simpler cases, which would earn a 5.

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