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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description instead adds the useful behavioral fact that results are dataset-level metadata derived from a sample query and that the close-date range reflects a sample rather than the full corpus. It does not state response shape or whether the sample query parameters can be influenced, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The content statement comes first, the usage decision second, and both earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does list the three coverage facts returned. A caveat remains that it does not clarify the output format or whether the close-date range is a single value or a pair, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 single parameter (_apiKey) is fully described in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none is needed; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It gives a specific verb ('Report') and a precisely scoped resource (the EBSA OCATS enforcement dataset's coverage), then enumerates what is reported: publication date, update frequency, and sample-query close-date range. It is clearly distinct in substance from search tools like ebsa_search or ebsa_recent, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 second sentence gives an explicit usage condition: check data currency before relying on an absence of cases. That is a real, actionable when-to-use rule, but no alternative is named (e.g. when to prefer ebsa_recent for actual cases instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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