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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the decided record only appears 'once decided', implying pending cases return no decision details.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action and its outputs come first, followed by format coverage and an example. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing example is useful rather than padding.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is nearly complete. The description enumerates return fields, compensating for the absent output schema. Minor gap: no mention of behavior for unrecognized or not-yet-decided case numbers.

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 coverage is 100% so the case_number parameter is already documented. The description goes further, enumerating the valid number prefixes/formats (G-100, P-100 to P-203, I-200, H-2A/H-2B/CW-1) and giving a concrete example, which meaningfully aids correct invocation.

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: looking up one DOL case by number, and enumerates the returned fields (status, filing date, employer, job, decided record). It differentiates implicitly from bulk siblings like search_sponsors, but does not name an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the description establishes that you need a DOL case number and lists which program families the lookup covers (PERM, prevailing wage, H-1B LCA, H-2A/H-2B/CW-1). There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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