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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it only flags detectably missing elements, never certifies compliance, and returns statute citations. This prevents an agent from overstating the tool's conclusions and accurately describes its conservative 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and output, the second provides the paid alternative, and the third adds behavioral limitations. The main purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (missing element plus citation), its limitations (free preview, never certifies, not legal advice), and its scope (four states). For a single-required-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds useful context about the law subset and required elements, but it does not add material parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and a concrete resource ('a job posting's text'), names the governing laws (CA, CO, NY, WA), and states the exact output: flag missing salary-range or benefits elements with a statute citation. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling check tools by subject matter and behavior.

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 explicitly scopes the tool as a 'free-preview subset' and names the paid full 15-state + DC report as the alternative, with a URL. It also sets expectations with 'Conservative: never certifies a posting as compliant' and 'Not legal advice,' giving an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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