compare_attorneys

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return elements (ratings, reviews, specialties, etc.) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no data is modified or discuss error/edge-case behavior.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second provides input source and return content. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to get inputs, and what to expect in return. It lacks explicit mention of output format or error behavior, but is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully describes the slugs parameter (array of 2-4 strings). The description adds value by specifying that slugs must be canonical from search_attorneys, which is not in the schema, improving parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: compare 2-4 attorney profiles side-by-side. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('attorney profiles'), and the side-by-side framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attorney_profile. The 2-4 range is also explicit.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use canonical slugs from search_attorneys, establishing a prerequisite and source of input. It doesn't explicitly compare to close sibling tools like compare_review_intelligence, but the guidance is clear enough for most use cases.

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