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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning about potential timeouts ('Pass async:true to avoid timeout') and listing the kind of outputs returned (exposure score, settlement amounts, trends). This goes beyond structured 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 five sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, inputs, outputs, use cases, and async note. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description covers inputs, outputs, use cases, and async behavior, and an output schema exists to handle return-value details. Combined with annotations indicating read-only safety, this is a reasonably complete picture for an estimation tool. A minor gap is that it doesn't discuss data reliability or geographic scope limitations, but these are not critical given the output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaningful new semantics and introduces an inaccuracy: it mentions 'employee count range' while the schema defines employee_count as a single number. It also omits lookback_years and async, though the schema covers them. Since it repeats schema info rather than enriching it, the value is below baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimates litigation exposure risk for CHROs by analyzing past employee lawsuits, settlement amounts, and industry benchmarks.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like talent_contract_risk_mapper (contract-focused) and talent_legal_dashboard (broader dashboard) by focusing narrowly on litigation exposure.

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 provides clear use cases: 'Ideal for legal risk assessment, HR strategy planning, and board-level reporting.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the context is specific enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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