search_attorney_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'most relevant matches' and 'detailed reviews' but does not specify how relevance is determined, whether results are sorted, or what the return format contains. This is acceptable for a read-only search tool, but more detail on ranking and result structure would improve transparency.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence and usage context in the second. Every word earned its place with no filler or repetition of structured data.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and usage context well. It does not explain the exact shape of the response or ranking algorithm, but the use cases and parameter relationships are clear. Sibling tool references in the schema (e.g., firm_slug source) are already covered, making the description reasonably complete for a 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples like 'communication, wrongful death, motorcycle crashes' that map to the need, case_type, and injury parameters, providing slight extra context. However, it does not elaborate on parameters such as limit, dimension, or sentiment beyond what the schema already 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's function: 'Search a law firm's detailed reviews for the most relevant matches to a specific need, case type, injury, sentiment, or pain point.' It uses a specific verb ('search'), identifies the resource ('law firm's detailed reviews'), and differentiates from sibling tools like get_attorney_reviews by emphasizing ranking by relevance to stated criteria.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when someone asks for reviews about communication, wrongful death, motorcycle crashes, fees, settlement clarity, or similar client concerns.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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