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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations with the legal extension citation, covered roles, days-remaining return content, and State Plan caveat, though 'free' is minor repetition.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core return value and legal basis, then adds the State Plan caveat and access notes. Every clause contributes useful information, with no filler.

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 zero-parameter informational lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, for whom, under what legal extension, and with the State Plan caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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: returns OSHA HazCom 2024 compliance dates under 29 CFR 1910.1200 as extended by 91 FR 1695. It clearly scopes the content to manufacturers/importers/distributors and employers, substances and mixtures, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_hazcom_readiness.

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 by the stated return value (compliance dates with days remaining), and the State Plan caveat helps set expectations. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings such as check_hazcom_readiness.

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