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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety burden is off the description. The description adds useful scope context: it discloses that every figure is tied to a regulation paragraph and that penalties, cures, and Form 7220 records are included in the output.

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?

Front-loads "Start here" and then dense enumerated scope in a single paragraph; every clause conveys coverage, so little is wasted. It is still long enough that skimming the topic list takes effort.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-content burden and does so well by enumerating what each topic covers. For a single optional-enum, read-only orientation tool this is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing to sibling computation tools.

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% and the enum values are fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little beyond that by clarifying the default ("all") and the one-topic-or-all invocation pattern, though it does not map its listed topics cleanly onto the enum values.

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?

Names a specific verb (explains) and resource (IRS prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements), and scopes it to specific credits (IRC 48/48E). "Start here" plus the enumerated content clearly separates it from the check_*/lookup_* siblings that compute individual tests.

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?

"Start here" gives a strong positioning cue for first use, and "Ask for one topic or all of them" sets expectations for how to invoke it. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names the sibling tools (e.g. check_prevailing_wage) that handle cases where a concrete determination is needed, so it falls 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.