find_nearby_attorneys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Haversine distance calculation and the return format (sorted by distance, contact info, ratings). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits potential edge cases or error 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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, method, and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values (attorneys sorted by distance with contact info and ratings). It covers the main behavior of the tool well, but could mention things like limit/radius constraints, though these are already in the schema. Overall, sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only hinting at 'near' and distance calculation. It does not clarify how radius_miles interacts with the distance formula beyond what the schema states.

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 finds 'personal injury attorneys near a geographic location,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_attorneys and get_nearby_crashes by focusing on proximity-based attorney discovery.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (near a geographic location) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies the tool is for location-based searches, which differentiates it from general search tools, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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