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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the return shape (fields and ordering), the window semantics, and that a total count is included. It does not cover pagination or limits beyond the schema's default note, but the annotation coverage keeps the bar lower here.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with return details and example questions following. It is slightly verbose — the analogy and three example questions consume space — but each sentence earns its place by conveying return contents, ordering, and filter semantics. A single sentence could be trimmed but structure is sound.

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 feed tool with zero required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it returns, how results are ordered, the count, and available filters. It could note pagination or the days/limit interplay, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is materially 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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 5 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the case_type meaning (C/R) and the ULP synonym. The description reinforces the case_type and region filtering but adds little that the schema does not already state, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than higher.

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+resource+scope: returns the newest NLRB case filings over a recent window. It explicitly lists the return fields (case number, name, date filed, status, city, region), the ordering (newest first), and the total count, and grounds it with an analogy (new-filings feed) that separates it from the nlrb_search and nlrb_case siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Provides concrete trigger questions that establish when to use it ('what NLRB charges were filed this week', 'recent union election petitions', 'how much labor board activity...'). However, it never names the sibling tools or states when NOT to use it — no explicit exclusions for nlrb_search or nlrb_case — so the routing guidance is context-rich but not explicit about alternatives.

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