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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: data provenance (clinic websites), what each result includes (price inclusions, source page, read date), ordering (listed by name, not ranked), and coverage honesty (many clinics post no price, and the answer reports how many do).

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add essential caveats about ranking and coverage. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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 location-based lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough return-value context (inclusions, source page, read date, coverage count) and safety is covered by annotations. An agent has what it needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both the state and optional city parameters are already documented in the schema. The description confirms the state/city scoping but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific resource—self-pay IVF cycle prices posted on US fertility clinics' own websites—and scopes it to one state with an optional city. It is clearly distinct from siblings like employer coverage or insurance rules, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the state/city scoping and the focus on clinic-posted self-pay prices, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as estimate_ivf_cost or employer_ivf_coverage.

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