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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes beyond by stating it 'records nothing', 'issues no document', 'never confirms compliance or a statutory excuse', and is 'Information, not advice'. These are significant behavioral caveats not captured by annotations, adding real value for an agent.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the primary action. It lists many result categories but each is relevant for an agent to understand the output. No wasted words; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned findings (urgent problems, critical uncertainties, etc.) and the statutory basis, plus the incomplete-walk handling. It does not detail a response structure, but for a tool with this complexity the coverage is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions of the answers object (single-choice, multi-choice, checklist, date formats) and the assessmentDate pattern. The description only adds a reference to the source tool and the incomplete-walk behavior, which is a minor enhancement; it does not substantially expand on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Run the employer Right to Work assessment') and the specific input source (answers from right_to_work_questions). It enumerates the categories of results, distinguishing it from siblings like sponsor_licence_check or visa_cost_estimate, which address different workflows.

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?

It explicitly ties usage to prior collection of answers via right_to_work_questions and explains the incomplete-walk behavior ('returns the next screen to ask'). While it doesn't name alternatives for exclusion, the context makes the intended use obvious and the sibling list reinforces the distinction.

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