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

Annotations only mark the tool read-only/open-world; the description goes well beyond by explaining that calls return either a stage overview with typical durations or a stage deep-dive with tips and do/don'ts. It also discloses the coverage boundary (private-sector/state/local) and the separate federal EEO process, so an agent won't misuse it for federal employees.

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?

Four sentences each carry distinct information: what the tool is, how to invoke it for overview vs deep-dive, when to use it, and its scope/exclusion. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 informational tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it covers invocation modes, return content, use triggers, and a key scope exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or how to call it 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?

The schema already fully documents the optional stage parameter and the omit-for-overview behavior, so the description adds little new parameter syntax. It does enrich the mental model by describing what a stage deep-dive returns, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the actual parameter semantics.

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 ('EEOC discrimination/retaliation charge') and a clear action ('Plain-English guide to the 9 stages'), and immediately distinguishes the two invocation modes (overview vs stage deep-dive). This makes the tool's job unambiguous and distinct from the rights/attorney sibling tools.

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?

'Use this whenever someone asks what happens after filing with the EEOC' gives explicit trigger conditions, and the federal-employee caveat tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. While no sibling is named, the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is sufficiently explicit.

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