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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it names the returned fields and warns that the penalty amount is a DOL-assigned dollar-range bucket (e.g. 'over $100,000') rather than an exact figure, which prevents misuse of the data. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then filters, then a differentiation note — no filler. The second sentence is dense with parenthetical asides, but each carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields plus the penalty-bucket caveat, while the schema fully documents all six parameters. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema descriptions are more detailed than the prose (substring matching, default limit of 20, state format, API key handling). The description's filter list adds little beyond restating which dimensions exist, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource — search of closed EBSA civil-penalty enforcement cases — with scope ('since 2000') and the exact subject matter (deficient/late/non-filer penalty assessments against ERISA plan sponsors). It also distinguishes itself from the `form5500` pack, which covers filings rather than enforcement, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool applies (penalty enforcement against sponsors, not the filings themselves) and enumerates the filter dimensions it supports. It does not explicitly route between the closely related siblings (ebsa_recent, ebsa_sponsor, ebsa_coverage), so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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