Search matters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the return ('basic details including the matter id'), but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior despite a page_token param, default/max limits, or permission requirements. Useful workflow context, but substantial behavioral gaps remain for a 9-param tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the searchable dimensions are front-loaded and the return value follows. Nothing needs trimming.

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 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core filtering story but omits pagination, ordering, limit defaults, and incremental-sync semantics (updated_since). Adequate, not complete.

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 only 44%, and the description compensates for the documented subset (query text fields, status values, client, attorney, practice area). But limit, order, page_token, and updated_since are undocumented in both schema and description, so the coverage gap is only partially filled.

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?

States a specific verb (Searches) plus resource (matters) and enumerates the filter dimensions: text, client, status, responsible attorney, practice area. It also flags the return payload's key field (matter id). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like clio_matter_get, so the agent must infer the search-vs-fetch split, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 matter id needed by the other tools' implies a search-first workflow, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., use clio_matter_get when you already have the id). Usage is only implied.

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