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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Review the full definitions' and adds context about the classification severity, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or describe the format of the returned definitions. The description focuses more on the usage requirement than on the tool's own runtime behavior.

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 two sentences that front-loads the purpose and then adds a clear usage requirement. It is concise, though the second sentence could be seen as slightly redundant with the first, but it earns its place by emphasizing the mandatory call. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 simple reference tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool provides (definitions of all classes), the scope (Class I through VIII, III-D), and the required usage before filing a grievance. This is sufficiently complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.

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 that the tool reviews the full definitions of UAW abuse classifications (Class I through VIII, including III-D). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_grievance or get_grievances, which handle other aspects of the grievance process.

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 explicitly says 'REQUIRED: You must call this tool before file_grievance' and warns about the consequences of filing under the wrong class. It names the specific sibling tool (file_grievance) and provides a clear directive for when to use this tool, making it easy for the agent to understand the prerequisite.

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