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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that matching records are returned with next due date and status, which conveys a read-only result. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, no auth requirements, no rate limits, or how results are ordered/paginated.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds meaning; no filler, redundancy, or boilerplate.

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 simple single-parameter interface, the description covers what the tool returns and the search dimensions. However, it lacks guidance on filtering behavior, result set limits, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 documents the query parameter well, including case-insensitivity and 'omit to list everything.' The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so this dimension stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb and object ('Search lift compliance requirements') and specifies the fields to search by (operator, machine, requirement type). It effectively defines the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_lift_summary or list_citable_items. The description implies it is a search/list tool, but it does not state alternatives, exclusions, or edge cases where another tool should be used.

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