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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it effectively discloses key behaviors: newest-first ordering, default category, filtering options, cursor pagination, and that records are observational (filings, not adjudications). However, it does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements, which are minor omissions.

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 front-loaded with a clear question, but contains some verbose phrases (e.g., 'a labor-relations moment for PEOs, staffing, and labor counsel'). It is structured logically, progressing from purpose to details to pricing, but could be tightened by removing non-essential context.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the feed nature, filtering, and pagination. It mentions 'flat rows' but does not explicitly describe the output structure or that it returns an array with a next_cursor, which is a notable gap.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default category ('representation'), the scope of the 'category' parameter, and the purpose of cursor pagination, which goes 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 provides a bulk feed of NLRB petitions, defaulting to representation petitions, with details on employer, case type, region, filing date, and unit size. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nlrb_cases_search by emphasizing its feed nature and specific use case for monitoring.

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 implies this tool is for bulk monitoring of NLRB filings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like nlrb_cases_search. There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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