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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that cases are filed as allegations (not judgments), lists the return fields (employer, region, union, election tally), and notes the price per row. Missing are rate limits or pagination details, but offset/limit are in schema. The description adds useful context beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by search criteria, return data, usage context, and price. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the first sentence could be more concise. 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?

Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, key searchable fields, return data, and pricing. It lacks an explicit note on default sorting (though schema provides it) and does not describe edge cases like empty results. However, for a search tool of this complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enumerates primary search criteria but does not add semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. For example, it mentions 'case type (CA/CB/RC/RM/...)' but the schema already defines case_type with examples. Minor added context from the opening question.

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 opens with a clear question ('Which employers have NLRB labor activity...') and explicitly lists the searchable criteria (employer, case type, category, status, region, state, union, election result, filing date). It also distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools by specifying the domain (labor-relations trigger for PEO/HR, etc.) and the nature of the data (allegations, not judgments).

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 implicitly states when to use (searching for NLRB labor activity) and provides a usage context ('a labor-relations trigger for PEO/HR, benefits, staffing, and outplacement'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how to choose among the many sibling search tools, though the domain specificity helps.

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