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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real substance: how records may be held, the redaction option, and that unredacted records go to the IRS on request. That is genuine operational context beyond the 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?

One dense sentence with heavy parentheticals, but every clause carries information useful to an agent, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the record-keeping and Form 7220 details. Slightly run-on, no filler.

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?

Two optional enum parameters, no output schema, and a rich annotation set — the description supplies the domain context (regulation cite, retention/redaction rules, Form 7220 linkage) an agent needs to call and explain the tool. It does not describe the checklist's structure, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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% with both enums and their default values documented in the schema. The description restates the role options ('a taxpayer, a prime contractor or a subcontractor') and the two requirement areas, but adds no format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource — the record-keeping checklist for prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements under 26 CFR 1.45-12 — and scopes it by role and requirement. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_applicability or check_prevailing_wage, though the noun-phrase framing ('The records ... as a checklist') is less verb-forward than ideal.

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 rather than stated: the reader infers this is the tool for 'which records must we keep and who holds them.' No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many check_* siblings is given.

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