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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns an overview for no arguments or a deep-dive for a stage number, covers private-sector and state/local workers, and explicitly mentions the federal employee exception. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes information about usage, scope, or output. Slightly verbose but clear and well-organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns: an overview with stages and durations for no arguments, and a deep-dive with expectations, timing, tips, and do/don't for a stage argument. It also clarifies the scope (private-sector/state-local) and notes the federal exception, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although the input schema provides a parameter 'stage' with a description, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that omitting the parameter yields an overview, while providing a stage (1-9) gives a deep-dive with specific details (duration, key tip, do/don't). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 identifies the tool as a plain-English guide to the 9 stages of an EEOC charge process. It specifies the verb 'guides' and the resource 'EEOC charge process', and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'explain_my_rights' by focusing on procedural stages.

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 description explicitly states when to use: 'whenever someone asks what happens after filing with the EEOC...'. It also provides exclusion context by noting that federal employees follow a separate process, and it differentiates the tool's behavior with and without the stage argument.

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