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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides information only, defers to attorneys, and never files a petition. This transparently sets expectations about its non-actionable nature, though it lacks details on data handling or error behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core functionality and end with critical disclaimers. Every word serves a purpose, 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?

The description mentions that output includes 'governing statute cited and a confidence tier,' which partially addresses expectations. However, no output schema is provided, and for a tool with 12 parameters, more detail on the output structure would enhance completeness.

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 schema has 12 parameters with only 25% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema. It does not add significant context for the majority of parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: to detect which U.S. visa categories likely fit a person's situation, listing specific categories like O-1, EB-2 NIW, etc. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are unrelated to visa matching.

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 the tool (for visa eligibility assessment) and includes important caveats (information only, not legal advice, never files a petition). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives among siblings, but no sibling offers similar functionality.

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