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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real domain context beyond them: the three-year threshold defining "due" and the fact that ProofPass stores no expiry date, which explains why missing revision dates qualify.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, then the qualifying criteria, then a short clarifying note about expiry dates. No filler or repetition; the parenthetical earns its place by naming the source of the rule.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the result set, and it does so precisely via the inclusion criteria. Minor gaps remain around ordering and result size/pagination, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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?

One optional enum parameter (language) with 100% schema description coverage, including default and fallback behavior for untranslated content. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema carries it fully; 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Lists the current documents of the connected account") plus an explicit inclusion rule: SDSs older than three years and documents with no revision date. An agent knows exactly what set comes back, though the description never names how it differs from siblings like list_manufacturer_documents or list_deadlines.

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?

Usage is implied by the criterion "the reminder the dashboard shows", which tells the agent this mirrors a dashboard view. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool named for adjacent needs (e.g. per-manufacturer documents or upcoming deadlines).

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