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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description adds the temporal scope ('since 2016') and the data sources used, which is useful context, but says nothing about rate limits or response size.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates outputs. It is efficient, though the long mid-sentence list of metrics makes it slightly harder to scan than a split structure would be.

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-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what headline metrics come back and the time window, which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around result size and usage routing.

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%; the schema already documents the 'section' parameter format and that paragraph references are accepted. The description only names example sections, adding no syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Headline enforcement figures for one 29 CFR section.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (citations, inspections, penalties, median penalty, rank, interpretation-letter counts) and names example sections, making it easy to distinguish from search_standards and top_cited_standards.

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 'for one 29 CFR section' – the agent infers this is a single-section lookup rather than a search. But it never states when to prefer this over search_standards or top_cited_standards, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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