search_lawyers

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 states that results are ranked with claimed/verified profiles first, which is useful. However, it does not detail other behaviors such as default sorting order, whether partial matching is applied, or pagination behavior beyond parameter definitions.

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 concise sentences that front-load the tool's action and resource, include key filtering options, and mention the ranking behavior. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: directory size, filtering options, and ranking. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty results) or precise ordering, but for a search tool it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its basic behavior.

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 is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning specific filterable parameters and providing example values (e.g., 'Criminal Defense' for practice_area). It does not elaborate on offset/limit further, but the schema already defines them clearly.

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: searching the Law.AI directory of verified lawyer profiles. It explicitly lists filtering dimensions (practice area, state, city, bar status) and mentions ranking behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like get_lawyer_profile (individual profile lookup) and find_lawyer_by_name (name-based search).

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 usage context by specifying when to use the tool (when filtering by practice area, state, city, bar status is needed). It implies this is the primary search tool for directory lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though sibling tools are available for reference.

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