search_attorneys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool returns attorney profiles plus a canonical slug, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly indicate that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 clearly states the action, scope, filters, and return value. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the primary use case well: it explains the return value (profiles and canonical slug) and the main filter dimensions. It does not detail the profile structure or pagination, but the schema covers pagination, and the absence of an output schema makes the return description sufficient for initialization. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying that the search is scoped to Colorado, but that is explicit.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by mapping filters (city, county, specialty, rating, verification) to the corresponding schema parameters and clarifying the geographic scope (Colorado). It does not add syntax or value restrictions beyond what the schema already documents, so no higher score is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('personal injury attorneys in Colorado'), and enumerates key filters (city, county, specialty, rating, verification). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning the canonical slug for use with profile, review, and comparison tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool: to search for Colorado personal injury attorneys with filters and obtain slugs for other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope (Colorado, personal injury, attorney search) and the mention of the canonical slug imply differentiation from siblings like search_attorney_reviews or find_nearby_attorneys.

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