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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says what fields are returned but never clarifies whether the record is persisted, whether this is a read-only computation, or whether it is idempotent. The core behavioral question for a 'build' tool is unaddressed.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is largely a restatement of the first's return content, so it earns slightly less than a perfect score.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description names the returned fields but omits the required 'hazards' input, the meaning of 'sector', and any persistence behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 67%, below the 80% baseline, and the description mentions no parameters at all. It never explains the required 'hazards' input, its linkage to list_hazards, or the undocumented 'sector' field, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Build') and a precise resource ('section 6 ArbSchG documentation record for an assessment'), and clarifies the output ('result, measures and the review result field'). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like assess_workplace or review_due, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 phrase 'for an assessment' implies the tool is used in the context of an assessment, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite ordering, or named alternative. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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