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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'agent-native mandate rails' phrase, which implies the operation is scoped by mandates (clinic_id, mandate_id, principal_id), a useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, ordering, or error behavior – though the output schema may cover return values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List Toofi treatment plans through agent-native mandate rails.' Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of structured data. It is appropriately concise for a read-only listing operation.

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 tool's complexity (9 optional params, output schema, robust annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what 'agent-native mandate rails' means or distinguish from sibling listing tools (list_demo_plans, list_patients). The phrase could confuse an agent without domain knowledge. The output schema covers return values, but usage context 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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, including purpose and optionality. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high, and the description does not need to compensate further.

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 verb and resource: 'List Toofi treatment plans' – this is specific and distinct from siblings like get_plan (single plan) or list_demo_plans (demo data). The added phrase 'through agent-native mandate rails' hints at the access scoping, though it is jargon-y. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_plan retrieves a single plan or that list_demo_plans is for demo data, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., mandate context). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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