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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful context about data source (DOL WHISARD), cost ($0.10 USDC per call), and an example of output values, but it does not discuss pagination, failure modes, or auth requirements. Given the annotations cover the risk profile, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the use case, then lists return content, a predictive insight, an illustrative example, and source/cost. Each sentence adds value, though the example is somewhat lengthy. Overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose for the information conveyed.

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 partially explains return values ('back wages assessed and employees affected') and gives a concrete example. It lacks a formal return structure or error handling info, but for a simple read-only tool with two parameters, the information is sufficient for most call scenarios. Missing state semantics is the main gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'employer, vendor, or acquisition target' and gives an example with 'Logistics Co LLC', which implies employer_name. However, it never explicitly explains the 'state' parameter or how it filters results. The description provides an example but does not fully define the parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns DOL Wage and Hour Division enforcement history — FLSA overtime violations, minimum wage violations, child labor violations — with back wages assessed and employees affected.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_osha_enforcement or get_employer_h1b_wages by explicitly naming the DOL WHD and its data types.

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 opening sentence provides explicit use contexts: 'Use when screening an employer, vendor, or acquisition target for wage and hour compliance risk before a contract award, supply chain partnership, PE acquisition, or HR due diligence review.' It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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