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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a routing-based catalogue ('the routing note says which apply'), limited to a specific statutory version, and explicitly non-advisory. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, legal version, size, routing behavior, usage instruction, and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the downstream call is stated in one short sentence.

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 read-only catalogue with no output schema, the description covers the object type, legal scope, routing behavior, the parameter module's effect, and the next step. It falls just short of full completeness because it assumes some knowledge of what a 'routing note' is and does not enumerate the output structure beyond screens/fields/option ids.

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 only parameter, module, is fully specified in the schema with an enum and description explaining that omitting it returns all screens. The tool description does not need to add more, and it doesn't. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the tool as a catalogue of 'screens, fields and option ids' for the Employer Right to Work checker, scoped to the rules extended on 1 October 2026. It also frames the tool's role in the workflow: gather the employer's answers and call right_to_work_assess. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling assessment tool.

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 gives concrete usage direction: collect answers as option ids and pass them to right_to_work_assess, and clarifies this is 'information, not advice.' It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like going_rate or sponsor_licence_check, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it for question-gathering.

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