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

Annotations already mark this read-only/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does: it flags time-sensitivity, explains that employers often revoke access during the termination call, names the three priority tiers, and draws an explicit legal boundary (no copying/forwarding from employer systems). That is substantive operational guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and triggers, and the negative boundary earns its place. It is somewhat long and repeats the section definitions that also appear in the schema, which is mild redundancy, but 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent what the result will contain (sections 'today', 'this-week', 'quiet') and why timing matters. For a single-optional-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 enum values are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by attaching priority meaning to each section ('today' = highest-leverage, minutes matter; 'quiet' = low-priority prep) and stating that omitting the parameter returns the full checklist, which aids correct invocation.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (produce an evidence-preservation checklist) with the specific scope: what to write down, what records the worker already owns, and how to enumerate the rest for an attorney. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like explain_my_rights, find_employment_attorney, or get_eeoc_process, which handle adjacent but different jobs.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('about to be fired', 'retaliation is escalating', 'mentions a PIP or sudden access changes', 'asks what to do before reporting discrimination') and an exclusion ('does not advise copying or forwarding material from an employer's systems'). This is close to a full when/when-not specification.

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