clio_find_matters

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Returns concise fields, paginated,' which offers some insight into the response shape and pagination, but does not detail read-only nature, pagination controls, or potential omissions. The practice area mismatch also reduces 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of 'practice area' without schema support makes it slightly inaccurate, which detracts from its otherwise efficient structure.

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 search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how pagination is controlled (e.g., limit param), what 'concise fields' include, or how filters interact. The phantom practice area filter further weakens completeness.

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 description partially covers parameter meaning by listing search criteria, but it fails to map criteria to specific params (e.g., practice area is not a param). It does not elaborate on limit, status enum values, or query syntax. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 'Search matters' and lists criteria (client, status, practice area, free text), distinguishing it from get_matter or find_contacts. However, 'practice area' is mentioned as a filter but no corresponding schema parameter exists, creating ambiguity.

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 searching matters but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like clio_get_matter or clio_find_contacts. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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