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

In the absence of annotations, the description provides behavioral details: it uses public records, name/address-matched, discloses match tiers and confidence, and specifies the verdict and per-source counts. It does not mention side effects or authentication needs, but these are not critical for a read-only data lookup.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear question, then detailing the scope, output fields, and a usage note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return values, and it does so thoroughly: per-source counts, severity totals, action dates, match tiers, and confidence. Combined with the schema for inputs, the description provides complete context for correct tool invocation.

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 input schema already has good descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context: name should be normalized (legal suffixes and punctuation normalized), state is the employer's keyed state. This extra detail helps the agent understand parameter formatting beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to check if an employer has federal enforcement history (WHD, OSHA, EPA). It specifies the input (company name and state) and the output (counts, severity totals, etc.). The name and description distinguish it from siblings like firmstanding_screen_exclusions.

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 tells when to use: to screen an employer's enforcement history with a single call. It also notes it is not a consumer report and not for FCRA use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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