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

Beyond the annotations of readOnly and idempotent, the description discloses important behavioral limitations: GigNGo runs no background checks, filmed evidence does not prove identity, inferred_from_messages means the job was counted, and the record should never be reduced to a single score. This materially changes how an agent should interpret and use the result.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence carries essential information: what the record is, what evidence types mean, how to interpret them, usage restrictions, and how to obtain the handle. Despite its length, there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description is impressively complete. It explains the meaning and provenance of evidence types, warns against misuse, and tells the agent where to source the handle. Nothing critical to selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 fully documents the handle parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the handle should be the slug from search_local_workers or get_worker_profile, which clarifies where a valid value comes from and disambiguates the expected format.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get a local's Work Record: evidence of their work.' It explains what the record contains and enumerates evidence types, which clearly sets it apart from profile or search tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_worker_profile, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—reading work evidence—and explicit prohibitions: 'Not for employment, credit, insurance or tenancy decisions.' It also tells the agent to use the slug from search_local_workers or get_worker_profile as the handle. It doesn't name an alternative tool for profile-only needs, so it lacks an explicit when-not/alternative comparison.

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