match_lawyer_to_matter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool classifies the issue into practice areas and returns ranked matches, but does not mention side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or behavior when no match is found. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and process but lacks details on the output format, such as what fields the matches contain or how to interpret the ranking. It is adequate for a straightforward match tool but could be more 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It states the overall process but does not enhance individual parameter semantics, such as what 'budget' or 'urgency' values mean in context.

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 purpose: describe a legal issue and get matched with relevant lawyers. It specifies classification into practice areas and ranking by relevance, credentials, and location, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_lawyers or find_lawyer_by_name.

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 for matching based on a legal issue, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or what specific scenarios it is best suited for, though sibling tools provide context.

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