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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reports which name matched (trade vs legal), covers 'every concluded case', and provides aggregate figures. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds useful behavioral detail. A 4 is justified.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the matching behavior is stated, and the use case is given at the end. 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (per-case detail, aggregate violation and back-wage figures), how matching works, and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the output structure, but since there's no output schema and the description already summarizes the return content, this is a small gap. A 4 is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for the 'employer' parameter by explaining it matches against both trade and legal names, which is useful. However, it doesn't add meaning for 'limit' or '_apiKey' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Full Wage & Hour enforcement history'), a specific resource ('one employer'), and the key output dimensions ('per-case detail and aggregate violation and back-wage figures'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it matches both trade and legal names and reports which one hit. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use to answer whether a company is a repeat wage-violation offender.' It also explains the matching behavior (trade name and legal name) which helps an agent know when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like whd_search or whd_top_backwages, but the sibling list and the specific 'one employer' scope imply when to use it. A clear context with no exclusions, so 4 is appropriate.

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