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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key non-obvious behavior: "NO automatic filing — Hive returns options + intake URLs only. The disputing party files directly with the chosen provider." This explains what the tool does NOT do, which is critical for correct usage.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states purpose and inputs, the second clarifies the critical non-filing behavior. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with 3 params and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what is returned (ranked options + intake URLs) and what is not done (filing). It fully covers the tool's behavior and inputs.

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 each parameter is already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it mentions "optional jurisdiction preference" but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: "Given a case description, disputed amount in USD, and optional jurisdiction preference, return ranked arbitration provider options." It specifies the action (return ranked options), the resource (arbitration provider options), and the inputs. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it returns options + intake URLs only, not filing.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a case description, amount, and possibly jurisdiction preference, and want ranked provider options. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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