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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns plant-death events with a collateral map indicator, and mentions data sources (CA EDD, CO UCC). It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects, which is acceptable for a query tool.

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 a dense paragraph containing multiple technical details. While informative, it is not particularly concise or well-structured, with jargon that may reduce clarity. It could be more streamlined.

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?

The description fails to explicitly outline the return structure or fields, despite the absence of an output schema. It mentions 'failing employer' and 'collateral map indicator' but does not specify the full set of fields, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, with the description merely restating the schema's description. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: listing recent WARN-Act plant-death events (mass layoffs/plant closures) as the second distress-event lane for a liquidation map. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the specific lane and pointing to warn_liquidation_map for full collateral inventory.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (initial triage of dying plants) and directs users to warn_liquidation_map for deeper analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond the mentioned sibling.

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