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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are sorted 'most serious first' and that the list focuses on exposures, adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or whether the data is read-only, which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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 succinct, at two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose ('List overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals'). The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note about ordering, making every word earn its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and how it's orderedUTE. A minor omission is that it doesn't state the response format, but that is less critical for a list-only tool without parameters.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the scope of the list (overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals), which is more than baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 lists overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals, and emphasizes that it sorts by seriousness. This distinguishes it from general service listings like 'search_services' and summary tools like 'get_compliance_summary', though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 use when needing to identify compliance intervals that create immediate exposure, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'search_services' instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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