get_attorney_profile

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and the conditional 'when available' for AI intelligence data. However, it does not mention behavior for missing slugs or other edge cases, nor any permissions or side effects, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Get'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key contents. It is concise, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 get-by-slug tool, the description covers the primary behavior and expected outputs, and the schema covers the parameter. It does not describe error responses or clarify overlap with get_attorney_reviews, but these are not critical given the explicit list of profile components.

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 100%, with a detailed description for the only parameter 'slug' including where to obtain it. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get a detailed attorney profile by slug' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by enumerating the returned contents (full bio, practice areas, reviews, credentials, office location) and noting AI-analyzed intelligence when available.

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 usage when a detailed profile is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_attorney_reviews or search_attorneys. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, though the schema's parameter description hints at a workflow via search_attorneys.

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