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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that each record carries a per-citation attorney-reviewed flag, which tells the agent how far to trust the citation. It does not state anything about how large the unfiltered list is or whether results are truncated, which would matter for the no-argument mode.

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?

Effectively one long sentence plus an invocation clause, front-loaded with the resource and the enumerated payload. The parenthetical catalog is dense but every element is informative; no sentence is filler.

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 burden of describing returns and does so concretely. For a two-optional-parameter read-only lookup, the only meaningful gap is list-mode volume/pagination behavior, so the definition is close to complete.

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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot convey: the mutual-exclusion/mode behavior of id vs. query and the fact that supplying neither returns the full list. The example ids and search syntax are left entirely to the schema.

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 resource (a catalog of New York workers' compensation formulas) and enumerates its payload — formula, symbol definitions, plain explanation, statutory citation, attorney-review flag. That framing implicitly separates it from the many calculate_* siblings, but it never names one explicitly the way a top-scoring definition would.

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?

"Pass id for one formula, query to search, or nothing for the list" gives explicit invocation modes and makes the default (empty call) behavior unambiguous. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over a calculator such as calculate_aww or get_max_min_rate, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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