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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only explainers approved by The Comp Desk are returned, and the payload carries sentences, a definition, related terms and an official source. Return shape without an output schema is described at a summary level only.

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 core identity and payload contents are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a trust constraint and the call modes. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the 'slug or term' phrasing is the only genuinely wasteful/misleading fragment.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers what it returns, what it filters (approved explainers only), and the no-argument list behavior, which is all an agent needs absent an output schema. The only weakness, the phantom 'term' option, is a schema-consistency issue rather than a missing-context 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 coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds one real behavioral detail the schema lacks — omitting the parameter returns the list — but muddies things by saying 'Pass slug or term' when no term parameter exists and additionalProperties is false.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('plain-language explainer of one New York workers' compensation topic') plus concrete examples (AWW, SLU, ANCR) and enumerates what comes back (sentences, definition, related terms, official source). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as define_term or search_wc_knowledge, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives invocation guidance ('Pass slug or term, or nothing for the list'), which usefully signals a browse-all mode when no argument is supplied. However, it never says when to prefer this over define_term or search_wc_knowledge, so alternative selection 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.