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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds relevant context like time-sensitivity and the legal boundary, but it does not describe the tool's own operational behavior beyond returning a checklist. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense but not padded: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives triggers, section mapping, and urgency. There is mild redundancy with the schema's enum descriptions, but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a read-only annotation profile, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to use it, what it returns, how sections map to urgency, and why time matters. The schema covers the remaining parameter detail, so nothing essential 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 single optional group parameter is fully described in the schema with its enum values, section meanings, and omission behavior. The tool description mostly restates those section priorities rather than adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific deliverable—a concrete evidence-preservation checklist—and defines its audience and content: emails, chat DMs, performance reviews, HR records, and pay records. Although it does not name sibling tools, its checklist focus is clearly distinct from the legal-research and rights-explanation siblings.

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 explicit trigger conditions: someone fears termination, retaliation is escalating, a PIP or sudden access changes, or asks what to do before reporting discrimination. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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