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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is descriptive (not predictive), reports median years and counts, and covers specific concern types. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, both informative and necessary. It front-loads the main action and adds key constraints (descriptive, not predictive) without redundancy. 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?

Given the single optional parameter and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and output structure (median years, counts). It clarifies the descriptive nature. Minor details like handling of missing data are absent, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already fully describes the single optional parameter 'guideline' with its values and mapping. The description reiterates the concern types but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description's contribution is marginal.

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 clearly states that the tool measures the time between the most recent conduct and the decision, and reports median years for favorable vs unfavorable decisions. It lists the specific incident-type concerns covered, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_statistics' or 'similar_cases', so clarity is high but not maximal.

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 implies usage when recency of conduct is relevant and explicitly states it is descriptive, not predictive. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines or mention alternatives among sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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