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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: it names what comes back (risk level per hazard, non-low gaps, next review date) and asserts determinism, which is useful for caching and retry reasoning. However, it never discloses that the call appears to persist a record (the schema says employees are 'stored in the record'), so the write side-effect of this tool is left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-value and determinism details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does the right thing by summarizing the return shape and determinism. The remaining gap is the undisclosed persistence of the record and the list_hazards prerequisite, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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%, with each of the three parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema's own parameter docs.

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 (assess) and resource (a workplace) against a named standard, section 5(3), which pins down what the operation means. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_hazards or review_due by the assessment framing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when this is used (assessing a workplace against the hazard checklist) but gives no explicit trigger conditions, no when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites. The dependency on list_hazards for hazard IDs only appears in the schema, not the description.

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