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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects' and adds useful context about the pilot's rule-based scoring and page-cited findings. It does not contradict 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a colon to organize the return contents. It is slightly repetitive about the intended audience ('SSDI representation and intake firms' vs 'law firms or intake operations'), but each sentence contributes useful scope or behavior information.

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, zero-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the subject, the returned categories, the target audience, and an explicit non-audience. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 and an empty schema, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The description's lack of parameter detail is appropriate and does not create a gap.

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: 'Returns Zicron's 30-day SSDI intake-scoring pilot...' and enumerates the returned content (what it does, price, inclusions, limits, request method). It also narrows the audience to SSDI representation/intake firms, which distinguishes it from the general offer/sample/quote/request siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this only for law firms or intake operations handling SSDI claims,' and gives a clear when-not: 'It is not for individual claimants...' However, it does not name an alternative tool for individual claimants, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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