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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: real-time generation, output contents (risk scores, alerts, citations), and a timeout risk with the async workaround. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, inputs/outputs, and an operational tip. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information appears first. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a dashboard generator, the description covers the core purpose, key inputs, output content, and a performance consideration. It could elaborate on the two boolean flags or provide an example, but overall it is sufficient for a competent agent to use 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 only 17% (async alone has a description). The description names three key inputs (jurisdiction, employeeCount, riskThreshold) which adds some meaning, but includeIP and includeLaborLaw remain unexplained beyond their names, and no details about thresholds or value formats are given. It partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and names the exact resource ('real-time legal risk dashboard for CHROs') while listing coverage areas (contracts, intellectual property, labor law compliance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like talent_litigation_exposure or talent_contract_risk_mapper.

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 provides a use case ('Ideal for proactive legal risk management and compliance monitoring') and an operational tip ('Pass async:true to avoid timeout'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than contrasted with sibling tools.

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