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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the three-value return status and that answers include precise standard citations plus caveats. It does not mention the free-tier 50 requests/day limit or that results may be REQUIRES_VERIFICATION rather than definitive - but the rate limit lives in the schema.

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, then trigger, then return shape, then exclusions - a logical order an agent can scan. The trade/region coverage sentence is long but earns its place by bounding scope; the whole is slightly dense but free of 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (status + standard + caveats). Combined with 100% schema coverage on all five parameters and a full annotation set, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds genuinely additive scope information: it names the supported trades and the supported jurisdictions ('Australia, UK, USA, Canada, and EU'), which constrains the free-text region parameter that the schema only illustrates with examples.

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 ('answers construction trade compliance questions with exact code references and clause citations') and enumerates the trades and jurisdictions covered. The output vocabulary (COMPLIANT, NON_COMPLIANT, REQUIRES_VERIFICATION) makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_code_reference or verify_material_compliance.

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 both the trigger condition ('when a tradesperson or engineer asks whether a specific installation, practice, or configuration is compliant') and explicit exclusions naming the alternatives to use instead (calculate_technical_spec for calculations, plus safety checklists and RAMS documents). Nothing is left to inference.

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