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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world status, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: every match carries an `authority` field with T1/T2/T3 semantics, and it instructs how to characterize each tier. It also discloses the corpus boundary (topics Jobsite trains on, not all of 29 CFR), which is precisely the kind of behavioral constraint annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope before alternatives and caveats, and the tier-caution and corpus-boundary sentences earn their place. It is dense and slightly overstuffed with emphasis markers, but no sentence is redundant.

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, yet the description covers the return shape (per-section text with citation heading and jurisdiction, plus the `authority` tier field), the result cap via schema, and the empty-result semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so query, limit, and jurisdiction are already documented, and the description does not add syntax or format detail beyond mentioning jurisdiction implicitly via citation headings. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (search a verbatim authority corpus) and enumerates the exact contents: 29 CFR per-section text, CA/WA/OR heat and wildfire-smoke rules, OSHA interpretations, NIOSH/CDC/EPA guidance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_training_source, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 a concrete use condition ('when the user asks what an authority ACTUALLY SAYS', exact rule language, trigger heights, employer duties) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it. It also supplies a negative rule for interpreting empty results ('not in the corpus', never 'no such rule exists').

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