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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: exactly what it scores (uncited rules, failed results, unaccepted labs, pre-acceptance tests, stale ASTM F963 edition, bad dates), what it returns (readiness score, fixes, draft eFiling certificate values), and an explicit limitation, 'It never says a filing is correct.' That limitation is a meaningful guardrail not present in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and input routing, then the gap taxonomy and outputs. The six-item gap enumeration in one sentence is dense but each item is decision-relevant. 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?

For a six-parameter tool with a nested file object and an output schema, the description covers the two input modes, the rule-resolution alternative, the optional date, the scoring dimensions, the return shape, and a scope caveat. labId is left to the schema, which documents it fully, and returns need not be restated since an output schema exists.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the product-vs-ruleIds alternative and the labId fallback. The description reinforces the file/text choice and the product-or-ruleIds requirement but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Check a children's product lab test report') plus the workflow moment ('before the importer certifies'). It references the sibling find_cert_rules as the source of ruleIds, so an agent can place it relative to alternatives without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear triggering context ('before the importer certifies') and concrete input routing: upload the PDF as file, paste as text, add product or ruleIds so the check knows the rules, manufactureDate if known. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or explicit exclusion, which keeps it short of a 5.

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