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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds that results are deterministic, that it returns the proposed 300-log classification plus verbatim 1904 rationale and an 8/24-hour reporting deadline, and that unknowns surface as questions rather than guesses. 'Reads and writes no records' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 dense sentences: what it does, what it returns, how to fill inputs, and the side-effect guarantee. Nothing is padded and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value disclosure — and it does: classification or outstanding questions, rationale with verbatim quotes, and a reporting deadline. Combined with the schema's per-parameter descriptions, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 82%, so the schema already carries most semantics. The description adds meaningful invocation guidance for 11 optional params: omit what isn't known, since unknowns are handled as follow-up questions. It doesn't explain individual fields beyond what the schema does.

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 ('Runs ... decision tree') on a specific resource (OSHA 29 CFR 1904 recordability) and names its output. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_law_corpus or lookup_jobsite_docs: this is a deterministic evaluator, not a search.

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?

Gives explicit input-mapping guidance ('Map the story to the answers; leave out anything not known — unknowns come back as questions, never guesses'), which tells the agent how to call it. It doesn't name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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