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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the substance of the answer (what the law requires, the underlying statute, and explicitly the self-funded employer plan carve-out where state law cannot reach), which sets expectations for a legal-information lookup.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is dense — three distinct payloads (RESOLVE summary, statute, unreachable plans) packed into a single clause chain — but every clause contributes 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?

A simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description usefully previews what the response contains rather than needing a return-value section. It does not mention how to handle a state with no mandate (empty result vs. negative answer), which is the one gap an agent might hit.

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% and the single `state` parameter already documents accepted forms (two-letter code or name, DC included). The description only reinforces that this concerns a US state's law, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 names the resource precisely (a US state's insurance mandate for IVF, infertility treatment, and fertility preservation) and states the outputs: the RESOLVE summary, the statute, and which plans fall outside state law. Scope is distinctive enough to separate it from employer_ivf_coverage, though it never names that sibling explicitly and reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the state-law lookup, and the parenthetical about self-funded employer plans hints at a boundary. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to employer_ivf_coverage for employer-specific questions, which is the most likely confusion given the siblings.

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