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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Does NOT invent fines, statistics, or legal conclusions' and 'points to a free, no-signup readiness self-audit.' This usefully clarifies the tool's informational and non-legal nature.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does and lists key compliance points, the second adds an important limitation, and the third gives the trigger for use. It is informative without being padded or redundant.

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 the tool's low complexity (zero required parameters, simple optional input, no output schema), the description covers purpose, content scope, behavioral limitations, and usage context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and the single optional parameter 'industry' is already documented in the schema as used 'only to tailor the wording.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Explains') and a concrete resource: the OSHA Hazard Communication employer compliance deadline and required elements. It clearly communicates the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool find_safety_data_sheet; the compliance-readiness focus makes the distinction fairly evident.

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 includes an explicit usage directive: 'Use it when someone asks whether their business is OSHA HazCom compliant or ready for the deadline.' This provides clear context for when the tool applies, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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